If I were Barack Obama I'd be pissed.
Frankly, I'm just a bit disappointed as General Wesley Clark's messaging. I was ecstatic when he began his campaign of criticizing John McCain's credentials to be President on Morning Joke but he blurted an easily soundbitten statement on Face the Nation that was also prettily easily twisted by the manipulative hacks in the media. His statement, "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," was not the best he could have done. Let's examine the statement, shall we?
Firstly, it's clear that simply getting shot down in a plane isn't a qualification to be President. The phrasing, though, is equivalent to Republicans saying "Well, I don't think being the skinny kid with a funny name is a qualification to be president." Each of those statements reduces a complete person into a charicature by only describing one biographical aspect of them. Also, the message is easily misunderstood. No, getting shot down is not on the list of Presidential qualifications, but likewise, neither is living in Indonesia or being audacious enough to hope.
Regrettibly, General Clark's statement was a straw man argument. Who claimed previously that John McCain's credential for office is getting shot down in a fighter plane? Not even John McCain has done that. Yes, he has mentioned the POW thing as many times as Rudy mentioned 9/11 but he has not said "I was a POW. Can I has Prezidency?" Reducing the argument to those terms does nobody any favors.
I'm slightly astounded by so many people saying that Barack Obama, next President of the United States, must defend General Wesley Clark. It's a bit silly isn't it? General Clark is a strong man, has commanded many soldiers in combat, and is a very brave individual. He also misspoke. He regrettibly boiled down his nuanced argument to a statement that doesn't actually reflect the point he has been very careful to make:
"I know he's trying to get traction by seeking to play to what he thinks is his strong suit of national security," Clark said of McCain while speaking from his office in Little Rock, Arkansas. "The truth is that, in national security terms, he's largely untested and untried. He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or [in managing] his own congressional staff. It's not clear that this is going to be the strong suit that he thinks it is."
The above was first reported more than two weeks ago (June 11th). However, the traditional media did not make any hay regarding this statement for a number of reasons:
- It is uncontreversial; John McCain is largely untested and untried.
- John McCain did not rush his surrogates out to defend him. Simply put, there is no defense and they had nothing to say.
- The above argument is more than one sentence long.
However, this tempest in a teapot has erupted because a very careful and cautious general did not speak as carefully and cautiously as he could have. I believe he is more than content to take his licks, clarify as needed, and stand by his claims (as he is already doing) without involving Senator Obama in the brouhaha. Besides, this is what surrogates do. They move the Oveton Window from unthinkable to sensible. Give this a couple months and many people will be seeing John McCain for the inexperienced executive he is. This conversation has just started and we have General Clark to thank for it.