Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
TEXT SIZE: A A A A
Email this post | Back to Blog home
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wes Clark and the risks of hardball

 

Did Wesley Clark really say what I thought he said? Did the retired four-star general and ex-NATO commander, in his role as Barack Obama surrogate, actually dare to suggest yesterday, on national TV, that Americans should refrain from genuflecting at the feet of John McCain just because he had been a POW?

He did indeed. The Clark soundbite on CBS: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

It'll be interesting to see whether the Obama camp puts Clark back on the air in the future. It's clear, on the one hand, that the Obama camp is fully prepared to play hardball, that it does not intend to accept the conventional wisdom (as expressed in most national polls) that McCain's war hero status makes him more qualified to keep us safe. Indeed, the Obama camp seems prepared to question McCain's greatest perceived character asset, in the hopes of fatally undercutting his candidacy.

On the other hand, such a mission requires a certain delicacy. It's arguably fair game to question whether five years in a POW prison automatically confers upon someone the wisdom to guide a nation's foreign policy nearly four decades later. The delicate part is figuring out a way to raise the legitimate issue without seeming to be dismissive of McCain's searing experience. Many viewers yesterday probably sensed only the latter.

Indeed, Team Obama sought this morning to distance itself from its own surrogate. On MSNBC, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "Obviously, those are comments of Wesley Clark, those are not the comments of Barack Obama."

Actually, Clark's remark doesn't seem quite as provocative when viewed in full context. On CBS' Face the Nation yesterday, he was asked to explain what he had meant, earlier this year, when he had called McCain "untested and untried." Clark replied: "I certainly honor his service as prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of millions of others in the 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 the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered bombs to fall..." (Here, Clark was referring to his own role as a NATO commander during the '99 bombing of Serbia. It sounded like he was auditioning to be Obama's veep.)

At this point, host Bob Schieffer interrupted, pointing out that Obama has none of those experiences either, "nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."

And that's when Clark retorted, "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Most Democratic voters are probably thrilled that Clark put this out there; Clark, in fact, is touted by many as a great veep choice, on the grounds that he can leverage his superior military credentials (West Point valedictorian, Rhodes Scholar, NATO commander) to legitimately question McCain's record.

And McCain has not been shy this year about trying to parlay his POW experience for maximum political gain; on his campaign website, his "Courageous Service" video begins with POW footage and returns to it repeatedly. Nor was he shy even in 1982, when he was first campaigning for Congress; seeking to fend off the (accurate) charge that he was a carpetbagger newly arrived in his Arizona district, he played the POW card during a debate, telling an opponent: "Listen, pal...I wish I could have the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi." 

The question for Obama, however, is whether swing voters will respond favorably to the kind of frontal assault launched yesterday by Clark. The danger for Obama, of course, is that an ill-nuanced critique of McCain's war record (or at least the widely circulated soundbite) might look too much like bare-knuckled old politics, as opposed to the post-partisan new politics that Obama has promised.

On the other hand, if the Obama camp cools on using Wes Clark again, perhaps it might prefer to question McCain's national security qualifications by recycling this 1999 remark about the guy's war record: "It doesn't take a lot of talent to intercept a surface-to-air missile with your own airplane."

The guy who made that remark? John McCain.

-------

Meanwhile, remember the flap last week when McCain strategist Charlie Black was forced to rescind his contention that McCain would benefit politically if the U.S. suffered a pre-election terrorist attack? The remark was widely thought to be in bad taste - but it was nevertheless thought to be true, since, supposedly, most Americans would automatically rally around the Republicans, supposedly the enduring party of national security strength.

As a corrective to that flawed assumption, I recommend today's mega-narrative in The New York Times, which is based on interviews with more than four dozen militarty and intelligence sources. It demonstrates in detail how the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq has made America weaker, more prone to attack from the terrorists who have reconstituted their strength where the war is really located, along the Pakistani border. (Regarding the Bush obsession with Iraq, let us remember that John McCain never questioned the specious rationales for invasion.)

Some choice story tidbits, among many:

"Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas. When American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq."

And this:

"With (al) Qaeda operatives now described in intelligence reports as deeply entrenched in the tribal areas and immersed in the civilian population, there is also a view among some military and C.I.A. officials that the opportunity for decisive American action against the militants may have been lost....Leading terrorism experts have warned that it is only a matter of time before a major terrorist attack planned in the mountains of Pakistan is carried out on American soil." 

This material alone would be fertile material for Wes Clark. Assuming that he is allowed to resurface.  

Posted by Dick Polman @ 10:56 AM  Permalink | 66 comments
SAVE AND SHARE
Comments
Posted by Fredclaims 11:11 AM, 06/30/2008
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." "It doesn't take a lot of talent to intercept a surface-to-air missile with your own airplane." Truer words have not been spoken recently about McSame. From vet, USAF Retired person...
Posted by AnObserver 11:52 AM, 06/30/2008
I'm not sure what the blow back may be from Clark's remarks. However, this seems like this was a carefully calculated attempt by the Obama campaign to have someone with superior military credentials attempt to neutralize McCain's presumed national security advantage. It is very difficult for anyone without the equivalent experience to assail McCain with his POW experience and national hero status. AO
Posted by sleepy 11:55 AM, 06/30/2008
What qualifications does Obama have in comparison, especially as a starting point? I know we never read history any more but a number of military leaders have been pretty good Presidents.
Posted by thelastRepublicaninPhilly 12:14 PM, 06/30/2008
What qualifications does Obama have to be anything more then a junior senator? He has no record to run on whatsoever, his campaign speeches and promises mean nothing if he's got nothing to back them up. What has he accomplished in his very brief experience in public office; next to nothing. Now he wants to smear a well respected war veteran and run against a Bush term rather then take McCain on directly. However, this is why he opted out of the public financing, he said to fight against the smear campaigns that would be coming. Sounds like his side is the only one smearing.
Posted by NJPinelander 12:17 PM, 06/30/2008
Even Obama apologist Dick Polman can't spin the fact that he has never been to Europe, the middle east or the rest of the world. The guy thinks there are 54 state in America but he never gets the rap that he is dumb or inexperienced. Does not fit the Inky narrative
Posted by JeffA 12:37 PM, 06/30/2008
America gets who they deserve..right? Admittedly, Obama is a rock star with little experience. Some say experience is overrated.... perhaps...evidence may suggest as much as we only need look at the greatest composers, scientists, artists, and entrepreneurs to know that one's eureka accomplishments are mostly done at a young age. So perhaps voting in 70+ year-old leaders over 40-something leaders is not where we ought to place our bets. Personally, I vented long for a more seasoned leader than Obama, that he should have run 8 years from now. But here we're faced with but two choices, and I'm not really in love with either, but of the two, my vote coalesces around Obama on the grounds that McCain originally embraced the Bush administration to win over his own party (flip-flopper). And now because McCain's economic knowledge is incredibly WEAK, he's surrounding himself with Bushie types to help him out. hmmm...energy costs, education costs, debt, debt, debt, healthcare costs, faith in the Federal Reserve (bankers), devaluation of the dollar, housing/sub-prime mess --- these are fantastic reasons to embrace the economic teams of the Bush term, eh?
Posted by JeffA 12:42 PM, 06/30/2008
NJ Pinelander - this drumbeat to knock Obama on knowing the # of states, that talking about 54 or 55 races is equivalent to states is such garbage. we have 50 states plus Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, District of Columbia, and Democrats Abroad...that's 55 by my count. Go take your disinformatzia to the Kool-aid drinking sites.
Posted by Rauol Duke 12:44 PM, 06/30/2008
Let's not forget, that AWOL Bum and Deferment King portrayed another Vietnam Hero has not ready to lead.
Posted by JeffA 12:45 PM, 06/30/2008
That's 55 Democratic primaries/caucuses - http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html
Posted by atp2007 01:03 PM, 06/30/2008
I agree that the Clark comment will cause more backlash than good, but maybe it will incite a discussion of McCain's actual military record and why he crashed 4 times during his misbehaved career.
Posted by p-diddy 01:06 PM, 06/30/2008
NJPinelander: Obama has actual relatives living in Kenya, where people like Hillary and McSame visit for photo ops.
Posted by jwad56 01:13 PM, 06/30/2008
There are 56 states if you count the Pine Barrens.
Posted by p-diddy 01:17 PM, 06/30/2008
McCain is tough, intelligent and he is experienced. But his positions are terrible.
Posted by jwad56 01:18 PM, 06/30/2008
Relatives in Kenya is definitely a qualification for President of the USA.
Posted by Yankee Air Pirate 12 01:23 PM, 06/30/2008
Apparently Polman's never heard of self deprecating humor ("doesn't take a lot .....).Nor has he heard that career military men move around a lot (carpetbagger charge).As soon as I saw the headline I knew I would enjoy the spin.
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.