I think digby hits the nail on the head with her blog post get-ready-for-mother-of-all-hissy-fits. While I have plenty of criticisms for Wes Clark, to be fair he was responding to a specific comment made by Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer...

Quote »

CLARK: 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. 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 this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, 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. CLARK: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

Did you guys catch that? Schieffer was listing "[riding] in a fighter plane and [getting] shot down" as valuable experience that makes McCain better qualified to be CIC, and Clark basically said "no, it isn't." Of course the right-wing blogosphere has lit up like a christmas tree in faux outrage over Clark's comment. Sadly, practically every one of those right-wingers is basing their outrage on Clark having said something that he didn't actually say, but we all know it isn't their style to let pesky facts get in the way of a good partisan rant. Yes, the head slapping and shrill screeching over this by McCain supporters will be EPIC, but it won't be based in reality.

Discuss

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

RonPaul2008!!!

"Personally I think that being a POW makes you a little crazy, and should be a negative mark on someone who wants to be president. Hell, I was in Vietnam...not even a POW, and I think that makes me a little crazy!"

I don't understand either how being a POW 35 years ago makes someone more qualified to understand foreign policy and the intricacies of the domestic economy. Dummies.

While I agree that McCain's service was valued, it should not be listed as an "achievement" or something relevant to his experience. It's like saying because someone was a bag boy at Wal-Mart they are more qualified to be CEO than someone outside the company.

myspace.com/nicknelson

Personally, I have never thought serving in the military -- successfully or not (i.e., as target or captive) -- was a particularly good reason to elect anyone to any office. Leading a group, perhaps -- but to continue the metaphor below, a Wal-Mart manager has also led a group.

There is a distinction in my mind, however, for people that came of age in a time of war. For the WWII generation, anyone who didn't serve was either unable to (they get a pass) or, imo, are not fit for the office. In Vietnam, not everyone was called, so it isn't as clear, but I do think less of people (in terms of their dedication to the country as I expect from POTUS) that left the country or otherwise saved their butts from actually serving, like Bush, Cheney and Howard Dean. But I don't think anything less of people who did not enlist, but registered, waited and weren't called.

As we go forward though, I am happily looking to the day where the POTUS need not have a connection to war in order to be seen as fit to lead. I think the connection between the military and the White House is too strong -- and that the connection with the average citizen is too weak. When military service was more universal, this wasn't the case -- but it is today. I believe that 20 years from now, Iraq vetrans will have no leg-up on their competition, simply for going there.

Now, I'll tell you what I don't see. Unlike the SBVT campaign against Kerry, which has repeatedly been proven to be mostly blatant lies and absurd hyperbole, I do not see Clark lying or grossly exaggerating , anywhere. If you think he has, then please point out where he has done so. I also don't see him attacking McCain's honor or character or integrity or patriotism in the way that the SBVTs constantly attacked Kerry in every imaginable way. In fact, immediately preceding the exchange with Schieffer quoted in the OP, Clark praised McCain's service: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands 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... " Again, if you see where Clark has either lied or attacked McCain's military record, please point it out for us. Remarkable parallels between Kerry's swiftboating and this? I don't think so, not unless you are talking about the right's swiftboating of Wes Clark by lying about what he actually said.

Quote, originally posted by Mark sans »

Kerry, despite having served and taken fire, was treated very badly by the right. Now, because McCain served and was held, he is untouchable, according to the right. For the left, they boasted about Kerry's leadership based on his service (remember the convention!) -- but are going to dump on McCain as not enough of a leader for his.

I don't see the left doing that, but I do see many on the far right deliberately misinterpreting anything that anyone on the left says about John McCain for partisan reasons.

Quote, originally posted by Mark sans »

Personally, I have never thought serving in the military -- successfully or not (i.e., as target or captive) -- was a particularly good reason to elect anyone to any office. Leading a group, perhaps -- but to continue the metaphor below, a Wal-Mart manager has also led a group.

I would agree with you, but many McCain supporters would interpret what you just said as taking a dump on McCain's military record.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

RonPaul2008!!!

One can only imagine the reaction if the conversation drifted onto the Forrestal Fire . . . (its thought/rumored McCains fighter was the one that caused the rocket to fire, that started the whole chain of events)

edit: Just did some more reading on McCains military service, it was . . . umm . . interesting.

Modified by FrreeeBird at 6:03 PM 7/1/2008

Quote, originally posted by tjbizzo »

If someone can explain to me how getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down IS a valuable asset for a presidential candidate to have then I'm all ears.

Go take a look at the Obama talking about black fathers thread. Same issue. People who have experience with something are better received when talking about it. Regardless what Sally Civilian thinks, Earnie Enlistedman puts more stock in McCain's decisions regarding the military because he has some experience with the thing. Same reason black folks don't take kindly to BoBo telling them how to raise their children or why accountants wouldn't take my advice on depreciation -- even if I can read up on the thing and know about it, people perceive authority through experience, however unrelated. Certainly Dubya's experience with the intelligence agencies has demonstrated that having the support of vital, unelected, professional elements of government are helpful.

Exactly what do you mean?

Will being a former military officer help McCain? Yes.

Screw W. Clark. What office did he ever get elected to? haha- none.

That wasn't what was being discussed.

myspace.com/nicknelson

Furthermore, McCain served- Obama didn't. The President is Commander in Chief. See some relevance there? Military service will always be relevant when someone is running for President.

By the way, the Wal-Mart analogy was out of line in my opinion.

I agree. People tend to forget what happened 4 years ago and now that the shoe is on the other foot, apparently everything is fair game.

Reminds me of the "flip-flop" talk not too long ago about McCain. Kerry supporters claimed that the use of the term against him was nothing more than political buzz words but the same folks were probably the first to go after McCain for switching his stance on some issues.

It's all just a dirty game, just depends on whose side you're on.

Perhaps we should start treating the government as a business and it would be more successful.

Just to voice a little opposite lock here.

IMHO, serving your country is a pretty selfless sacrifice and clearly illustrates a devotion to your country and its ideals.

Just saying...

But no, getting shot down doesn't make you POTUS material.

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” -Albert Einstein

Agreed, and well said. For that matter neither does burning the American flag in Moscow while you are a Rhodes Scholar (protesting the Vietnam War). I guess this would show that you know how to embrace the 1st Amendment and freedom of expression.

A Ceo doesn't need to do a tig welders job. Tig welders are a dime a dozen so to speak. Ceo's aren't. Each company only has one Ceo and possibly several tig welders and programmers.

Most Ceo's have a financial/accounting background or a marketing background. Those are byfar the most important aspects of any business; selling a product and the balance sheet.

In terms of the Presidency, IMO, it would be a legal background, Military background, lawmaking background, etc... NOT A TIG WELDER background!

In this respect, Obama being an attorney is a good thing and even though he is only a 1 term senator it is better than a 0 term senator. McCain having military experience and senate experience is a good thing. Experience that is directly related to your job is

Quote, originally posted by xiaogou »

Hmmm... lets see if the people who actually served with McCain actually have anything negative to say about him like they did with Kerry, OK? Furthermore, McCain served- Obama didn't. The President is Commander in Chief. See some relevance there? Military service will always be relevant when someone is running for President.

Well said

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had a ton of experience too.

Quote, originally posted by DonF »

So you would not vote for McCain because he is old? Isn't that a form of "racism" or "discrimination"?

Ron Paul 08

Let me ask you this. Did you support Harriet Myers nomination to the Court? I opposed Harriet Myers nomination to the Supreme Court. Just as I would oppose H. Clinton. Why? While they are great attorney's, they HAVE NO EXPERIENCE as JUDGES. Do you want people to sit on the highest Court who have never decided one court case in their life??? Experience is relative. The more important the position in society the more important and more relevant a persons experience.

Does "JUST" solely flying a plane and getting shot down qualify you for president? Of course not but neither does not having "ANY" military experience which McCain does have much of.

I actually agree with Obama's response here. "[McCain] endured physical torment in service to our country. . . . And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."

We should not be stooping as low as these "pop shots" here.

tjbizzo, I understand your point that he was just referring to the reporter's statement, but I'm quite certain he was trying to make the point that McCain has Military experience and Obama does not.

The comment by Clark was classless. He could have phrased the point he wanted to get out much better. But, I'm amazed how both sides quickly change views to discredit the other.

It drops deep as it does in my breath
I never sleep, cause sleep is the cousin of death - NAS

I take 7 MC's put em in a line
And add 7 more brothas who think they can rhyme
Well, it'll take 7 more before I go for mine
And that's 21 MC's ate up at the same time - Rakim

Thanks for missing the point of my post!!!

Like it or not his response was classless. The question was made to trap him, but it does not change Clark's intent to devalue his service. Either way, can't Obama's supporters take his own view on it. Which I do happen to agree with.

It drops deep as it does in my breath
I never sleep, cause sleep is the cousin of death - NAS

I take 7 MC's put em in a line
And add 7 more brothas who think they can rhyme
Well, it'll take 7 more before I go for mine
And that's 21 MC's ate up at the same time - Rakim

IS IT? No...it isn't. F.

What Clarke went on to say in that interview, and talked about in a subsequent interview was that strategic control, or strategic decisions in a time of war while in the military would lead to the requirements of the president, but McCain does not have that.

I was in the Navy for 4 years and ran the electrical shop at a C-9 squadron for 2 of them. Does that mean that my "military leadership experience" would make me a better state senator than any of you? No. Not in any way shape or form. In fact that experience in no way prepares me for office any more than a manager of any similar size office...thats it...a manager, nothing more. Even the XO of my squadron was nothing more than a manager. Unless your service involved tactical, and strategic planning of a military nature on a rater -large- scale I don't think military service should count for anything but a pat on the back when it comes to running for president.

Bush has military experience, how would you rate his military choices over the last 8 years?

Should being in the peace corps count towards a presidential candidates potential foreign policy experience? It's a service to the country, and you are representing the USA abroad! *sigh*

Modified by Superhatch at 4:20 PM 7/2/2008