Wes Clark is a very bad man

Wes Clark’s comment that being a military aviator and getting shot down does not qualify one to be president would seem to be obvious and unremarkable on its face.

But, since this is presidential politics, of course not. When I first read of the Obama camp’s rejection or condemnation or distancing, I agreed with Josh Marshall: “Lame.”

Then, last night, Clark refused to back down. And repeated it again this morning. WTF? Now that’s interesting. Clark may be a loose cannon, or he might be outspoken, but this is odd. What’s going on? 1) Clark is just an unrepentent, off-message whacko. 2) Clark is deliberately trying to hurt Obama’s chances. 3) He’s doing this with the tacit support of the Obama campaign.

Let’s go back to the original point: Being an aviator, getting shot down, even being a POW is no special qualification to be president. Now, that’s a thought, a concept that Obama really does not mind being discussed. It’s okay with him if that notion is “out there.” He can’t do it himself. LORD NO! (”Bad General! Bad, Bad, bad. Wes Clark is a naughty boy for even suggesting that military service is no qualification to be president. He should not have said such a thing. No, no, no. Verrrrry bad, General Clark. Go stand in the corner.”)

So here it is, it’s out there. Pundits now have the cover to raise it, maybe even in the debates. Ordinary citizens can talk about over barbeques this weekend.

Anyone else gonna vote Choice #3 with me?

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 02 Jul 2008 at 8:01 am

    The buzz: Questions and retorts…

    Gen. Wesley Clark, on “Face the Nation,” said he didn’t t…

Comments

  1. David C. wrote:

    I’m going with choice #1. That sort of thing doesn’t help the Obama campaign in any way, but instead calls attention to McCain’s bio — one of his strong points — and makes Clark look like even more of an idiot than usual.

    Obama can’t compete with McCain on the experience/qualifications front anyway, and he should avoid that topic. Even if he could take away McCain’s military service, McCain still has way more time in the Senate than Obama. I know Republicans are using it, but I think the experience argument is a loser in this election. It didn’t work for Hillary and it isn’t going to work for McCain.

    Posted 01 Jul 2008 at 1:44 pm

  2. Stephen wrote:

    Welcome back!

    Clark rose to be a 4-star, commanding NATO. Seems too high up the food chain to be #1.

    In 3-4 years, someone will write ‘Making of the President 2008,’ and we’ll know for sure then whether Clark was “following orders” or not.

    Posted 01 Jul 2008 at 3:34 pm

  3. David C. wrote:

    Stephen,

    Thanks. We did the move ourselves so it was pretty much a hellish experience. But we saved money, so I guess it evens out.

    Clark isn’t crazy, but he is a loose cannon politically — he didn’t exactly show much political aptitude when he ran for president. I can’t imagine that he’d really want to deliberately undermine Obama, and I think it is very unlikely that he is somehow coordinating his remarks with the Obama campaign, so #1 is the closest choice.

    Posted 01 Jul 2008 at 5:12 pm

  4. Redhand wrote:

    Well, obviously, just being a “fighter pilot” doesn’t qualify one to be President: consider the current incumbent! But I don’t think Obama can safely diminish McSame’s military record directly. Being a “war hero” has been a staple of American presidential politics since George Washington. Consider JFK, who “screwed up” and lost his PT boat. What’s important is that you be shot at.

    I respect McCain’s perseverance and courage while a POW, and his naval servive before that, even if he wasn’t admiral material. But it’s not a reason for me voting for him.

    Posted 01 Jul 2008 at 7:47 pm

  5. John the Marine wrote:

    Ole Wes Clark may have been a 4 star General but diminishing McCain’s Service in anyway is a political looser. Not only does it create sympathy and admiration for McCain but it also allows the GOP to paint the Democratic Party as the anti-military hippie party.

    Posted 01 Jul 2008 at 9:06 pm

  6. Alon Levy wrote:

    That’s true, which is why the Obama campaign is denouncing Clark.

    My guess is that it’s #1 and not #3, for the reasons described above. It’s useful for Obama to surreptitiously raise the idea that military service doesn’t qualify one to be President, but it’s even more useful for him to shift attention to something else. Besides, if he had intended to attack McCain’s national security credentials, he would have played up the Sunni/Shi’a gaffe.

    Posted 02 Jul 2008 at 9:16 am

« Who’s an “Elitist?”
“Diminishing McCain’s diplomatic service” »