US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Actually chandos it was cnn & msnbc that first started complaining about his statements not the republicans however just like a typical democrat you blame the reps for it.

 

First, regarding Wes Clark. His comments are true - being a fighter pilot and a POW do not automatically qualify someone to be the president. It's a classic case of not what he said but how he said it. The problem the Republicans had with it is twofold, in that it seemingly belittles his military service, and ignores his experience in Congress. Basically, McCain has never claimed that his service in the military alone qualifies him to be president. He has run on his experience as a whole, which in addition to his military service, includes a combined 25 years in the House of Representatives and Senate - keep in mind that Obama hadn't even started law school when McCain began his Congressional service.

The fact is that Wes Clark never should have said what he said. McCain volunteered for the military, was taken prisoner, was tortured, remained with his fellow prisoners even when given the opportunity to be released earlier, got tortured some more, finally got out and devoted the rest of his life to public service - he put in the full 20 years in the military and then another quarter of a century in Congress. When a guy has done all that for his country and then apparently gets dissed for - by a fellow career military man no less - I can understand how that would piss McCain off. And I can also see why the Republicans would paint this as a red-white-and-blue crime.

There were 10 different ways Clark could have made that point without disparaging McCain's record. For example, he could have said, "McCain's military experience does not include command of large scale ground operations or counterinsurgency operations. His service in the Navy, while commendable, does not better prepare him to be Commander in Chief in the global war against terrorism." Same point - better delivery. I think it's particularly the "getting shot down" part that makes his comment disparaging, because it suggests that McCain wasn't even a particularly good pilot - that if he was a good pilot he wouldn't have been shot down.

About the only positive point Obama can take out of this, is at least he doesn't have to disown Clark, simply because he never owned him in the first place. Clark very publicly supported Clinton, and only in the past month started speaking positively of Obama. Clark is not a member of Obama's campaign, nor is he on the committee to select Obama's VP, nor is he on the short list to become VP. Obama again reiterated that he respects McCain's service - and that should be it.

Onto whether Obama is just as likely to get us into a war as McCain. Martaug, did you actually read the article you linked to? Obama gave his preconditions for what it would take for him to take military action in Pakistan. He specifically stated it would require "actionable intelligence" against a "high value al Queda target" in the Tora Bora region of Pakistan for him the launch an attack. He's obviously stating that if he has an opportunity to take Osama bin Laden out, he's going to take it, and not rely on the Pakistanis to do it for him. Any president who takes out OBL will get a big ass gold star from the American people.

Conversely, he never stated that he would send a couple hundred thousand troops to lay seige to Islamabad or Karachi, overthrow the Musharraf regime, or bring in the number of troops to constitute an invasion. It would be a surgical strike to take out OBL, and it would likely be conducted with the troops we already HAVE in Pakistan. Yeah, Pakistan would be pissed off at us for conducting military actions within their borders and potentially against their wishes (this is assuming we didn't ask them first), but there isn't a hell of a lot they'd be able to do about it, and if you had the opportunity to take out that mofo OBL, I say it's worth it. After we got rid of OBL we'd get out, so unless Pakistan decided to invade Afghanistan or Iraq and fight us there, we wouldn't be in a war against Pakistan.

Compare and contrast that with McCain, who wants to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", with the explicit purpose of acheiving regime change. Martaug, you can honestly state that the possibility of a strike to take out OBL in Pakistan constitutes an equal chance to getting involved in an additional war as would McCain's stated objectives regarding Iran? I myself view the former as a possibility (as it involves preconditions and the assumption that Pakistan would not give permission), and the latter as a probability (McCain has stated he will do everything in his power to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon).

 

All this proves is that Democrats and Republicans are both willing to "spin" the truth in order to achieve their objectives. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- it's disgraceful and shameful no matter who does it.

 

Agreed, but considering Obama's sole real campaign message has been "CHANGE!", the mounting evidence that he's just another politician is particularly damaging for him.

 

NOG,

I don't get it - it was Clark who made the comment, and Obama who said he respected McCain's service - how is that making him just like any other politician?

 

From what I've read, Clark is not part of Obama's campaign, but perhaps NOG is a cynic! The technique of having an underling make a comment that is repugnant, and then repudiating it, is a way to have your cake and eat it too. You can slag the opposition while keeping your own hands clean. However, I don't see the present connection between Obama and Clark.

Another fun conspiracy theory would be this -- Hillary put Clark up to it in an attempt to smear Obama's campaign! Sour grapes to the nth degree.

Or even better: MCCAIN'S team put Clark up to it so as to make Obama look like a devious bastard. Holy Machiavelli, Batman!

 

I've noted this before (though I don't recall if I did so in this forum or not), but one of the interesting things about Obama is that in the recent past--AFAIK, prior to his Presidential bid--he was fairly open about some of, mmm, less pleasant aspects of being a politician. At one point, he responded to a question by saying, "How do you really expect me to answer that? If I told you how I felt, I'd be committing political suicide right now." Which was the absolute truth, and much more honest than you'd expect a politician to be. Likewise, in an interview with Harper's he was again unusually blunt about, mmm, political compromises:

 

Well, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Obama had been somehow involved in Clark's comments, but I don't really expect it. My point was more that every time Obama opens his mouth recently he seems to be caught being a politician.

 

R and D foreign policy in a sketch.

As a little side note, to induce some outside perspective, it can be argued that generally Europe has had a better time with the foreign policy of R-presidents than with the one of D-presidents. I completely leave out domestic US policy.

The best president in my recent memory from a German perspective, foreign policy wise, is George H. W. Bush. It was him who overcame British andf French opposition and made possible the German reunification. He also made sensible assurances to the Russians to not meddle in their backyard and on their front lawn, which made possible the peaceful dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, assurances we now see trampled with NATO expansion east (Clinton) and colour coded revolutions in Central Asia (Bush Jr.).
For that I fault both Clinton as much as Bush Jr. and in that we see some bipartisan continuity in US foreign policy that has a lot to do with the US triumphalist perception that they had won the Cold War (which is probably incorrect), and now could have the spoils and proceed at whim. They now complain a lot about Putin's outrageous assertiveness, but I dare say that any non-drunk Russian leadership would have conducted an assertive policy in face of such policy. Righting the relation with Russia is a thing I have heard Obama say little about; as for McCain, according to his talk he won't.

We just started making progress in our foreign relations with the Commies ('Neue Ostpolitik', or change through rapprochement) when Carter, with the best intentions, started to undermine us with his accusatory rhetoric about human rights in the USSR. Everybody knew the Commies were violating them, but preaching didn't help anybody, except that it makes the preacher feel good. All things in due time. Kennedy with his dominoes and highly idealistic language and confrontational approach (he basically started the Vietnam war) also was by comparison to Nixon and Ford quite an ideologue. LBJ really strained his allies internal politics with his insistences that we, pronto, send troops to Vietnam. 'Crazy Drunk' Nixon went to China to end this mess. Reagan is someone in between. He talked Kennedy, but did politics the Nixon, George H. W. Bush way.

The R's have generally been in the past more pragmatic and settled more on the doable. Dunno, maybe that's the way the old guard of Yankees do business?

Now, of course, then Bush Jr. comes along with his hyper-zealous and aggressive foreign policy - like the offspring of Woodrow Wilson and a boar - and destroyed the validity of that rule of thumb.

 

I think I understand what you mean, but Obama is a politician. I rather doubt he'd personally endorse, much less ask for, Clark's comments. If anything I think Obama would have preferred the general kept his mouth shut in this case in particular (imo it backfired, if slightly) and in general (keeping his hands clean in case he is groomed for a VP run); even if he did choose to challenge McCain's record on military leadership position, chances are at least someone in his campaign knows that he would be better off using more distant (and harder to trace to him) sources.

 

Of course, there's always the possibility that Clark, who was a Hillary man before he was a Barak man, did this with the intention of undermining Obama's position. It's a little out there and well in 'conspiracy theory' zone, but I wouldn't put it past Clinton.

 

I don't think it backfired at all. It raised an interesting question that will linger in people's minds. It was a valid point, and although it goes a bit against the grain, it was NOT an "attack" on Big Mac's military serviece, (the way it was on Kerry's) but an open question regarding the real requirements of a civilian presidency, which may or may not include such service.

 

I think that Clark made a valid point.

 

Ah, but the problem is that it will end up pointing this out as much for Obama as for McCain and, IMO, McCain has a TON more credentials for president than Obama.

 

Obama didn't say it, and disagreed with Clark's comments. As is said before, Clark is not a member of Obama's campaign, is not a member of the VP search committee, and is not on the short list to become VP. Given Clark's military service, he is one of few people who can call into question McCain's service without coming off as hypocritical. However, just because someone says something negative about McCain, I think we're assuming too much to automatically say he was Obama's attack dog.

 

I'd say it's about a 3% possibility that the guy was acting as Obama's atack dog. You're right, Aldeth, to say that it's a stretch to make the assumption as if it were true, but to bring up the possibility (as slim as I think it is) is not the same as saying it's true. To be honest, I'd be more inclined to believe the guy was doing it to undermine Obama to show loyalty to HRC. (I'd put that at about a 14% probability.)

What I believe is the most probable scenario, though, is that Clark was attempting to bring up a valid point and worded it badly, as any one of us might do when under the lights (60% probability in my book). As Chandos and Ragusa both pointed out, when stated without partisan spinning, it's a valid point. (Am I agreeing with those two on something? I'd better see a doctor and soon Actually, it seems I'm agreeing with Ragusa on more and more these days. Scary)

Back to the campaign, things seem awfully quiet to me -- are they gonna come out at each other with all guns blazing in September?

 

I don't think there was any planning whatsoever behind what Clark said. First of all, Clark is not exactly known for being the most artful selector of his own words. But more important than that, if you read or watch the actual exchange - which some of you clearly have not done - it's clear that all he's doing is stating an objective fact in direct response to what was said to him immediately beforehand.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

WES CLARK: I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

Clearly not something he was planning on bringing up when he went into the interview. If Clarke had brought this up apropos of nothing, those crying foul might have a point. It may have even come off as though Clarke was suggesting McCain was shot down due to his own incompetence as a pilot had me made that claim on its own. But that didn't happen.

The first people to respond to this were NOT the cable networks, but the McCain campaign, who within an hour sent out a press release savaging the Obama campaign for trashing McCain's service. The cable news networks then went apesh*t and jumped at the chance to manufacture a controversy because their ratings have all been dipping a bit since Obama locked up the nomination. There isn't anything insulting or demeaning in what Clarke said, and it's perfectly understandable for the McCain camp to push back on it. But what's remarkable to me is that the so-called bastions of the "liberal media" - CNN and MSNBC - were the ones who facilitated the McCain camp's faux-tizzy, resulting in a frenzy so fierce that the Obama camp felt the need to distance themselves from both the remarks and Clarke (a move for which I was sincerely disappointed in them for).

I find this all especially amusing considering that many of the same people on the right who were flat-out making stuff up about Kerry's service record in defense of two draft dodgers are now appalled at Clarke, a four-star General, for stating something that McCain himself would have been the first to tell you if asked about his own "qualifications." The stupid...it burns us, precious...

 

That may be true DR. However, it is one thing for a ex-POW to make the statement about himself (it shows humility and a sense of humor -- at a very high price), yet quite another thing for a man who had a great deal of responsibility in the military to make the statement. Clark's statement was dismissive. He latched on to a negative part of the question and milked it for all he could. Clark is too smart of a man to have made that comment off-the-cuff -- he had this in his back pocket (unless he is far less intelligent than I think he is). You simply do not get four stars without having all your ducks in a row, all the time.

I also think there is a bit of jealousy on Clark's part. McCain walked away from an assured promotion to flag rank to take up service elsewhere and has achieved far more than Clark ever will. The decisions McCain has made on the Armed Forces Committees have had far reaching effects on all branches of the military. As Chairman, he has greater responsibility and power than any military member has. It could be that Clark was trying to downplay that extensive experience base (which dwarfs Clark's own experience).

That said, there is no job, no position, no direct experiences that can prepare anyone to be 100% ready for all the issues the President faces. Not First Lady, not Vice President, not Chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee -- nothing. Granted, there are some experiences that can get a person a leg up and Obama will have a significantly greater learning curve than will McCain.

 

But you see, I don't see Clarke dismissing McCain's service at all. He was dismissing Schaeffer's assertion that somehow McCain's having "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down" was a qualification Obama lacked. You're right, Clarke is a very intelligent man and an excellent soldier, but he did indeed prove in the 2004 presidential campaign and beyond that he's not the most agile candidate or pundit. He's made inartful "off the cuff" remarks before, as have many otherwise brilliant experts in their given fields who are less experienced at punditry and stick their foot in their mouth on live TV. And as gaffes go, this one is one of the mildest I think I've ever heard of. If all four-star generals with all their ducks in a row were worth a damn in the political sphere, we'd see one or two run for president every 4 years. That said, Clarke is more articulate than most, which is part of why he's invited on TV so much.

Your speculation about Clarke's jealousy, while not unreasonable, strikes me as far-fetched. There are far more effective ways to undermine someone's claims to superior military experience without insulting them or directly denigrating their service. And as a four-star general with all his ducks in a row, he'd be in a much better position to criticize McCain on the specifics of his record on military matters, which is hardly flawless or universally well-regarded by the military at large. By way of example: Clarke could have mentioned that as of this week, Obama is receiving more donations from members of the active military than former-POW McCain is. And even if that had really been Clarke's intent, he could have attacked McCain more directly on Obama's behalf if he'd wanted to, while still keeping his distance from Obama's campaign. He didn't do that. So I don't find Clarke's comments all that harsh to begin with, ill intent or no, and therefore I find it hard to believe it was intentional. I agree with your last statement though; Obama will have a steeper learning curve than McCain.

 

I have to laugh at the partisanship in all this - And what kind of "curve" did GWB have? Remember the 2000 election? And all of Gore's experience against GWB's? How all the same Republican hacks claimed that Gore was "too much of a professional politician?" I seem to remember how Gore represented the "Washington establishment." My, my, my....how times do change, or is that party candidates that "change?"