Um...Gen. Wes Clark Challenges McCain's Military Credentials?

by Damozel |   Huh. Wouldn't it be better and more persuasive to focus on Obama's strengths, i.e., the fact he's right about Iraq and McCain is wrong?  I'm starting to think I would be an ace campaign strategist, if the problem with the following isn't apparent to Obama's advisers when it is so apparent to me. (Barack: Call me!)

Wes Clark is arguing that McCain's military credentials don't necessarily qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief.  I like Gen. Clark, but I think this was tactically a mistake.  According to Josh Kraushaar, this is what he said:

Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried” on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”...

“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 — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”  (YahooNew)

But of course, this is practically a plea for the GOP to point out that any experience is more than Obama has.  Though Lieberman --- who responded --- was apparently too tone deaf to hear the door open and zero in to the obvious argument:  'And Obama's relevant/superior experience would be....?'. Or maybe he did  zero in and they didn't quote that bit.   What's certain is that he responded with the usual delusional cant that the Iraq war is working.  . Needless to say, the right wing bloggers didn't hold back from the obvious response.

You've got to pick your issues, and Obama isn't going to get anywhere with this. I see Clark's point and I understand the objective, but this is a line of argument that seems certain to go nowhere and to end up providing ammunition to Republicans.  The side accused of being soft on the military can't afford to seem to be attacking a man recognized as a military hero.  And swiftboating isn't an option for Democrats who  objected to what was done to John Kerry.

So I'm failing to understand the strategy behind this attack.  Talk about Obama's plan for Iraq and be specific. Instead of playing the credentials game, Obama needs to show that he knows what he wants to do and intends to carry through with it. 

It's not a matter of who has the most experience; it's a matter of who knows what's best for the country and how to make it happen.  That's where McCain is weak, weak, weak. 

Read the responses here.

RELATED POSTINGS

The Freestyle Flip-Flopping of Champion John McCain

The Dread 'Move to the Center' Playing Out in Obama's Campaign

Olbermann's O-Reilly-ish Stance on FISA: Greenwald Delivers Knock-Out Punch

Bush Administration's Covert Actions re: IranMcCain Wants Tax Cuts -- for Himself

Chuck Hagel on McCain & Some Reflections About the Republican Party

Why Bill ---and Certain Hillary Supporters ---  Should Let Hillary Drive the Car

U-N-I-T-Y!  A Bloggerama

The Long-Awaited Unity Event:  'We Are One Party'

Greenwald Takes Olbermann's Defense of the new FISA Bill into a Back Room; Only Greenwald Comes Out

 

Comments

[Adam]

Well, as you mention, the first thing I think of when I see this is the swiftboating of Kerry. Somehow the guy who enlisted and won the silver star became the coward, while the guy who bounced around the air national guard and avoided combat duty became the noble warrior. So, this sort of "attack the perceived strength of the opponent" strategy can work.

I don't think that criticizing a perceived strength is, in and of itself, objectionable to Democrats. If Democrats argue that McCain was a bad pilot who took unnecessary risks, and that his getting shot down was a direct consequence of that, then (true or not) the echoes of the swiftboating will be a bit too loud to bear. But simply stating, "hey, it's not like this guy has ever commanded anything, and he was a lousy military student; he has no special appreciation for military strategy" is a reasonable argument.

Obama has the same sort of experience McCain does - he's on the foreign affairs and veteran affairs committees, right? Of course, he has a whole lot less time on those committees than McCain.

More broadly, though, I agree with you - the central foreign policy argument for Obama is that his judgement is better. If Clark's statements are packaged into the idea that experience is irrelevant and judgement is what matters, then that could work. But by itself, I agree, this line of argument leads nowhere.

[Adam]

Clark's response. He does a pitch perfect job of clarifying what he said. He clearly understands exactly what the point of this argument is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybBb2tUQtvI

Oh, and Lanny Davis is a tool.