Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Did General Clark Unfairly Dis Captain McCain?

General Wesley Clark, since retiring from the NATO command a prominent Democratic politician, and until a few days ago an appealing potential running mate for Barak Obama, declared last Sunday: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."



First, let's note that the words chosen are about as disparaging as they could possibly be. McCain doesn't even get credit for flying the plane, only riding in it. And for those of us who get past that to recall that McCain was actually piloting the plane, Clark tells us that he apparently wasn't very good at it because he couldn't keep the plane up in the air. Harrison Ford did better than that in Air Force One.



Had the good general been a bit more fair, he might have presented the more sober question whether being a Navy pilot was a relevant, let alone, material qualification for the presidency. Indeed, to be even more fair and objective, he could have suggested that being a decorated war hero was not a particularly relevant qualification for the presidency. Indeed, based on the fact that Bill Clinton -- if not a "draft dodger," then at least a fellow who thought he had more worthwhile things to do than serve in the military during the Vietnam War -- handily defeated two decorated World War II veterans, George Bush and then Bob Dole, it may be reasonable to infer that a majority of the American people may agree with that statement.



But of course, getting shot down in the plane was only the beginning. Maybe something about the ensuing five years enduring physical and psychological harassment and torture in a North Vietnam prison would be relevant. Candidate Obama demonstrated once again the natural skills that have propelled him to his present position as presumptive successor to Mr. Bush. At the same time as he eschewed General Clark and his comment, he spoke sympathetically of Captain McCain: "For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country, no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. " Speaking in Indpendence, Missouri, Obama also made the following statement: "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when others question mine."



Very good stuff. First, Barak Obama praises John McCain the veteran, John McCain the victim. Good man, served his country, let's wish him well, pin a medal on him and send him off to a well-deserved retirement. But then, a little slight of hand, casting the Wesley Clark comment in terms of questioning patriotism, he turns the sword into a shield. In fact, nobody, not even Wesley Clark, has questioned John McCain's patriotism; this is a problem that is entirely unique to Barak Obama. I'll keep my henchmen away from your heroic accomplishments if you keep your henchmen away from my lapel pin, wife and middle name.

But then, why the whining from the Republicans? Several McCain supporters jumped in to defend the candidate; Senator Warner of Virginia expressed shock at General Clark's comment. The fact is, stripped of its sarcasm, the statement contains a worthwhile point that does not denigrate McCain or his experience as a POW, but notes the virtual truism that those experiences don't qualify him to be President.

Finally, we get to the real issues, which are twofold. First, if General Clark is throwing down the gauntlet on relevant experience, what does his candidate have to offer alongside John McCain's more than 25 years in national politics, including four years in the House and more than 20 in the Senate? Does raising the qualification issue really help the Democractic candidate?

And second, General Clark does appropriately raise the question of why John McCain's war record and experience should be taken into consideration by the electorate. But the answer, an obvious one, can not be welcome to the Democrats. It's about character. John MCcain is more than a guy who suffered. He volunteered repeatedly for service to the country, and when captured by the enemy and suffering from severe wounds, he chose solidarity with his fellow soldiers and loyalty to his country over physical comforts and even freedom offered by his captors. You can talk about red states and blue states, one issue or another, but McCain has a brand of patriotism, honor, loyalty and trust that no amount of campaign spending or denigration can damage.

Which makes you wonder: If you were running against this man, why would you want to draw any attention to this stuff?