In the past few weeks, there have been many diaries on the subject of Clark's qualifications as VP. I've even written a few of them myself, as I'm a big Clark supporter.
Proponents of putting Clark on the ticket have focused on Clark's many qualifications, while opponents believe Obama doesn't need Clark to burnish his foreign policy or national defense creds.
I am not repeating that discussion here. Rather, I want to explore the specific issue of why Clark on the ticket has the greatest potential to enrage McCain's campaign and guarantee that McCain will be forced to defend his record on military and national security issues.
Follow me below the fold for a discussion of why Clark on the ticket will make McCain's head explode.
The Republicans have been angry with Clark since he eschewed the GOP and declared himself a Democrat after leaving the military. As Clark once put it when asked about his decision http://en.wikiquote.org/...
I'm pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-environment and pro-labor. I was either going to be the loneliest Republican in America, or I was going to be a happy Democrat.
So there's a history of the Republicans feeling rejected by Clark. But to understand why Clark on the ticket represents McCain's worst nightmare, we have to go back to June 11, when Clark was riding high on the VP short list. Many Kossacks already know the story, but just in case, here's what ignited the firestorm.
On June 11, 2008, Seth Colter Walls posted an interview with Clark on Huffington Post, in which Clark bluntly addressed all of McCain's shortcomings:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
"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."
Clark directly attacked McCain on his suitability as president and Commander in Chief, stating:
"McCain's weakness is that he's always been for the use of force, force and more force. In my experience, the only time to use force is as a last resort. ... When he talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 and makes ditties about bombing Iran, he betrays a disrespect for the office of the presidency."
Clark linked McCain to the Republican "fear tactics", saying Democrats can compete in national security areas without having to become like Republicans :
In the foreign policy arena, John McCain has pretty much bought the central thrust of the Bush administration's foreign policies: relying on threat and bluster [and] isolating people we don't agree with instead of engaging them."
Clark also blasted McCain and the Republicans on Iran, suggesting the Bush administration fumbled "a prime window of opportunity" to engage diplomatically with Iran early on, before the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While admitting that there are never any guarantees that diplomacy will have certain results, Clark noted:
But there are never any guarantees with force, either. John McCain should know that. He and I, along with many others, were caught up in an inconclusive war in southeast Asia.
Clark's blistering attack on McCain as "untested and untried" despite his military experience ignited a media firestorm. The McCain campaign came out in full defense mode (which means they attacked Clark), and a media still enamored of John Mccain's "war hero" mythology (I'm not saying myth, but mythology) put Clark through the grinder, asking him again and again how dare he question McCian's credentials.
On June 29, 2008, Clark appeared on Face the Nation:
http://www.securingamerica.com/...
Bob Schieffer on FTN took an incredulous tone from beginning:
Bob Schieffer: Well you, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, "untested and untried," And I must say I, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war. He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is un- untested and untried? General?
Despite the pressure to soften or repudiate his previous remarks, Clark held strong. He reiterated that McCain was a "hero" for his service, but didn't back down on his claim about his suitability as President:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it-'
Bob Schieffer: Well-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ' -it publicly.' He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe-
Bob Schieffer actually sputtered, he was so incensed that anyone could question McCain's credentials:
Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.
Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-
And this is where Clark -- in direct response to the context of Schieffer's question, responded:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.
Bob Schieffer: Really?!
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But Barack is not, he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment. And those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.
So, although Schieffer had specifically posited McCain's experience riding "in a fighter plane and gotten shot down" as the context of the question, and although Clark had repeatedly praised McCain's service and heroism as a POW, because Clark dared to question the relevance of McCain's fighter pilot experience as a qualification for president, the McCain campaign, the media, the punditry and assorted Democrats afraid of being accused of "disrespecting" McCain and his military service excoriated Clark, and repudiated the statements, accurate though they were.
Interestingly, although Obama disassociated himself from the statements, he did so in a fairly low key manner, saying something like he had better things to think about. (I don't have the source, maybe someone can post Obama's response.)
The media narrative became that Clark had made a fatal "gaffe" that had probably cost him a place on the short list for VP. In an effort to keep the issue from becoming a "distraction" to the Obama campaign, Clark moved on, although he never backed off his original statement, and repeated (when asked) that it had been a classic Republican smear tactic to take the comment out of context and distort it.
Throughout Obama's Iraqi tour, Clark -- battered by the media but unbowed and unrepentant -- continued to provide strong support for Obama's positions, such as the primacy of the president over the generals on the ground. For example, appearing on The Verdict, Clark easily held his ground against McCain surrogate Tara Wall:
http://www.securingamerica.com/...
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Can I just underscore something here, Dan? Look, as the Commander in Chief, he does not have to take the advice of the Commander on the ground.
Dan Abrams: As a General, you don't necessarily say ‘you have to listen to me?'
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No. You don't rule Washington. I mean, what Barack Obama's saying is he appreciates General Petraeus's judgment but he's got concerns that go beyond Iraq. He's mentioned Afghanistan. He's got the health of the United States Armed Forces. He's got other contingencies. He's got the War on Terror. So, Petraeus is in charge of, right now, one theater of this conflict and what Barack Obama is saying is ‘I see it, I understand your concerns about risks, it's my job to evaluate the trade-offs of the risks and this is the way I see it.'
. . .
Tara Wall: If I can just ask. Real quick, General Clark, given you know…obviously respect for the fact that you are a general, but if you're saying to the Commander in Chief, ‘here is a strategy I believe that works, we need to try this, we should give it a shot, give it time, let's see if it works,' I would think that you would hope that that Commander in Chief would take that seriously into consid…not just into consideration but give it an opportunity, whether it's a surge strategy or any other strategy you might be anticipating.
Dan Abrams: That's the distinction, because Barack Obama has said he would take it into consideration and it sounds like what Tara is saying is, shouldn't he at least say ‘yes?'
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And the answer is no – he's not obligated to say that. That's not the obligation
Dan Abrams: You say ‘give it a shot,' I mean, how long more do you have to give it a shot?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: The President of the United States does not…is not subordinate to the Commander in Chief in the theater of conflict. He just isn't.
So, while Clark continued to shine despite all efforts to muzzle him, the McCain campaign and its complicit media partners continued to bristle every time Clark spoke.
And in the rush to condemn this Democratic general who had boldly gone where no one had dared go before, and in obeisance to the media narrative that McCain's service is somehow "untouchable", no one asked the obvious question:
Why did Clark's statements -- and indeed almost every Clark pronouncement -- receive such a firestorm of protest from the McCain camp, complete with calls for Obama to "rebuke" Clark as recently as the August 3 MTP broadcast?
No one asked,what are they so afraid of? Maybe instead of running from Clark's statements we should embrace them, back him up, and finally have the discussion that the McCain campaign absolutely is terrified of having -- the discussion about the reality of McCain's record, his qualifications, and his background.
For the last 8 years, the rightwing attack machine, led by Karl Rove and his disciples, has worked to destroy any Democrat who dares to challenge Republicans on national security or military or foreign policy issues.
One reason we Obama supporters were so excited by his candidacy is that, unlike other Democrats, Obama never ceded this area of expertise to the Republicans, despite his alleged "inexperience". One reason the McCain camp was so freaked by Obama's European tour is that they expected him to fall on his face when he met with foreign leaders, and instead they saw a parade of leaders embracing Obama and his policies, and rejecting the failed agenda set by this administration and its disciple, John McCain.
The one area where they have successfully attacked Obama is in the area of military service, with the constant harping on McCain's "hero" status and his POW years. That's the "third rail" for Democrats, because the Republicans have set it up as "untouchable."
Why is it so "untouchable'? Because it is all McCain has, and if he becomes vulnerable there he's lost.
And one of the very few Democrats who can rebut the media narrative about McCain is Wesley Clark. It is because Clark so successfully threatens the Republicans that they throw everything they have at him every time he speaks on behalf of Obama.
The attack tactics the McCain campaign use are not random or spontaneous -- they are right out of the Rovian playbook: Take something out of context, then distort it, then turn it into a personal attack. Clark understands this. At this year's Netroots Nation, when asked about the "controversy", he stated:
http://www.securingamerica.com/...
But someone came to me last night. They said, "You weren't taken out of context, General Clark." They said,"This was a playbook operation by the right-wing freak machine." It's the great freakshow. And what they do is they take a statement, then they either take it out of context or distort it. Then they blast it. Then they criticize, and then it becomes personal. They're getting so good at it that they did all three steps in less than 12 hours. (laughter) And you fought back and I'm (applause starts) grateful to you from the bottom of my heart.
The McCain campaign, with its Rovian disciples at the helm, will use these same tactics against any VP candidate, just as they use them against Obama. Clark can handle himself under fire. Obama has also shown himself able to take the Republican punches, and throw a few as well, but since the media firestorm over the Clark statement, the Democrats have bent over backwards to "honor McCain's service," and studiously avoided questioning their relevance to McCain's qualifications to be president or examining any part of his service record.
This reluctance to engage this issue is a big mistake, because McCain's military service is the only narrative McCain has, and if its relevance crumbles the entire edifice crumbles. That's why the Republicans hate Clark, that's why they came out in force to "destroy" him for making an accurate response to a loaded question. And that's why the best and easiest way to put McCain's qualifications under the microscope is to put Clark on the ticket.
Just putting Clark on the ticket would be enough to ignite a Republican frenzy -- which Clark has shown himself quite capable of surviving. In the face of unrelenting attacks, Clark has stood his ground without becoming defensive or disagreeable. We now know he will withstand the attacks with the same steadfast demeanor he has shown for months. With Clark on the ticket, even if the media initially conspires to push the McCain talking points and attack Clark for his criticism of McCain, at some point, inevitably, the issues raised will have to be discussed. And then the entire area that McCain holds "inviolate" will no longer be off limits. And at that point, the Obama/Clark ticket will have succeeded in framing the issue: Does McCain's experience as a POW or a fighter pilot really qualify him to be President?.
The Clark statements, when revisited by a media no longer shocked by their newness and no longer quite as enamored of McCain as they were in June, will lead to a re-examination of the substance of the charge: How does McCain's POW or fighter pilot experience translate to the qualifications needed for the office of President?
Ultimately, truth will out: Clark never disrespected McCain's military service. He did question the relevance of McCain's experience. Until the Democrats boldly go where to date only Clark has led, McCain's mythology remains largely unquestioned, leaving him with a huge advantage in an area that he has declared "untouchable."
Were McCain truly "invulnerable" in the area, he would not have felt the need to defend it so hotly and attack Clark so fiercely. The very ferocity of the attack is testament to the degree of McCain's vulnerability.
Clark on the ticket will make McCain's head explode, and his campaign more defensive than any other choice. That alone tells you how much McCain fears Clark's charges. Why soothe McCain's ire by distancing Obama from Clark? Clark as VP guarantees that the issues Clark raised will ultimately be discussed. And the truth of McCain's vulnerabilties and inadequacies will be highlighted, without Obama himself ever having to say a word about McCain.
Obama/Clark08. Change we can believe in is worth fighting for.
UPDATED: Just a few hours after posting my diary, I get this email from Clark's WESPAC: Coincidence? Maybe not!!
Dear ,
I'm ready to "hit the road" and help Democrats across the country. But I need your help to do it. Click here to donate towards our $25,000 goal by Friday's deadline!
A little over a month ago, following my appearance on Face the Nation, the right wing freak machine took me out of context, attacked me, and just wanted me to "hit the road."
Well, I'm here to tell you: I'm not going away.
We simply have too much to do in these final three months. We have to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States. And we have to give him a working majority in Congress. So let's give the right wing what they asked for. I'm ready to "hit the road" and help Democrats across the country!
Contribute to WesPAC's "Hit The Road Fund!" Help us raise $25,000 by this Friday.
http://securingamerica.com/...
I'm committed to doing everything I can to help Democrats win this November. I've opened up my schedule and am ready to hit the campaign trail across the country. That's why I'm traveling across the country over the coming weeks.
I can only do this if WesPAC has the financial resources to keep me on the road these final three months. That's why we started the "Hit The Road Fund." I need your help to make sure I can stay on the campaign trail to help folks like Charlie Brown (CA-4), Eric Massa (NY-29), and Bob Tuke (TN-Sen).
I've set a goal of raising $25,000 by this Friday. Make a contribution to our "Hit The Road Fund" today!
http://securingamerica.com/...