Media mischaracterizes Clark comments, Obama backs away

June 30, 2008

Following up on an item from this morning, the pushback from news outlets, the McCain campaign, and conservative activists against Wesley Clark has been pretty fierce today. In fact, Clark’s comments have already taken on an entirely different meaning.

Here’s how Time characterized the McCain campaign’s efforts this morning: “The presumptive GOP nominee’s campaign launches a “truth squad” Monday morning in the wake of Gen. Wesley Clark repeating his stark criticisms of McCain’s war record Sunday.” That matter-of-fact analysis has been common all day — on Fox News, Molly Henneberg asserted that Clark “seemed to attack [Sen. John] McCain’s military service.”

But that’s just it — Clark didn’t criticize McCain’s war record or military service at all. Not once. Not even a little.

If you missed it, I posted the entire video clip this morning, but Clark actually praised McCain’s war record and military service, saying, “I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.”

What Clark actually said was that McCain has never held “executive responsibility.” McCain led a Navy squadron, but it “wasn’t a wartime squadron.” The line between McCain’s service and his presidential qualifications is incomplete: “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said. The point, which is pretty obvious to anyone who saw the interview and heard the remarks in context, is that McCain’s service several decades ago is not entirely relevant to his presidential qualifications now.

I realize we’re not accustomed to hearing anyone say this, but it’s not false, it’s not a personal attack, and it’s not criticism of McCain’s war record. The media and the right are manufacturing a scandal here that doesn’t exist. They want people to believe that a high-profile Obama backer attacked McCain’s service, despite the fact that this never happened.

Given the freak-out, I guess it’s not too surprising that Obama has started to back away.

Time reported:

In a speech on patriotism in Independence, Missouri, Obama honors McCain’s “physical torment in service to our country.” Also implicitly criticizes Gen. Clark’s comment Sunday disparaging McCain’s accomplishments in Vietnam.

“No one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides. We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Full stop.”

Shortly thereafter, Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton added, “As he’s said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain’s service, and of course he rejects yesterday’s statement by General Clark.”

Now, it’s possible that everyone is just playing a part here. Clark takes on one of the pillars of McCain’s campaign pitch, it gets lots of attention, and Obama distances himself from the remarks, nevertheless pleased that Clark inserted the argument into the public discourse.

The problem, though, is that the Obama campaign’s response implicitly accepts the criticism offered by the media and the right — that Clark was attacking McCain’s military service, despite the fact that never actually happened.

Josh Marshall had a good item on this:

The McCain campaign’s angle here is to not to prevent attacks on the integrity of McCain’s war record (which Clark explicitly did not do) but to make it off limits for anyone to question that his war-time experience means he has the temperament and experience which make him the better qualified candidate to be president.

The McCain campaign’s claim that there’s any attack here on McCain’s war record is simply a lie — a simple attempt to fool people. This is an essential point to this entire campaign — does McCain’s military record mean that even the Democrats have to concede the point that he’s more qualified to be commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, that his foreign and national security policy judgment is superior to Obama’s? It’s simply a fact that McCain has a record of really poor judgment on a whole list of key foreign policy and national security questions.

This is one of those moments in the campaign where the nonsense from the chief DC press sachems is so palpable and overwhelming that everyone who cares about this contest needs to jump into the breach and demand that they answer why no one can question whether McCain’s war record makes him more qualified to be president and whether he has good foreign policy and national security judgment.

Four years ago, Republicans said John Kerry’s military background didn’t necessarily mean he’s right about national security, and doesn’t necessarily make him qualified to be president. Yesterday, Clark made the same argument about McCain.

The feigned, coordinated outrage here is transparent. The way in which the media is buying into the outrage, and exaggerating it, makes me wonder if the McCain campaign will have to report today’s coverage as an in-kind contribution.

Post Script: And just to add insult to injury, the McCain campaign hosted a conference call this morning, and “rolled out a leading surrogate named Bud Day — who was described merely as a fellow POW of McCain — who blasted such attacks. ‘John was slandered and reviled in the 2000 campaign in a way that denigrated his service enormously…it was absolutely important to face this issue right off the bat.’ But guess what — it turns out that this very same Bud Day was featured in the Swift Boat Vets ads attacking John Kerry in 2004!”

The media and the right are manufacturing a scandal here that doesn’t exist.

You don’t say.

Given the freak-out, I guess it’s not too surprising that Obama has started to back away.

Not too surprising, but disappointing. Obama may be wanting to control the message here, in the face of the media’s obvious complicity in pushing bogus right-wing spin, but he appears to be conceding too much.

There was nothing wrong with what Clark said, period, full stop.

  • The worse part of this is the Obama Campaign let the Senator distance himself from Clark, rather than defend Clark’s statements. They are supposed to be smart about this.

    Turns out it is not quite so.

    Bud Day is an amusing joke though.

  • It really upsets me that the Obama campaign fell for this trick. They needed to reinforce their support of what McCain did for the country, while also supporting what Clark said by insisting that McCain’s service isn’t a qualification for president. This was a fairly big blunder and I hope they don’t continue this kind of thing. Republicans always raise the biggest huff when they’re lying/wrong/weak, and that’s certainly the case here. They know this is a big weakness for McCain and if Obama denounces Clark’s statement then they’re basically giving up on the issue all together. That’s a huge mistake.

    The rule is simple: If Republicans are in a big huff about something said against them, that’s where you need to hit harder.

  • gregory, old pal, i think the statute of limitations on using “disappointing” wrt obama ran out with his FISA sell-out.

    at this point, it should simply be understood that he’s an instinctive centrist with less ambition to overturn conventional narratives than he implied while running for the nomination.

    what i don’t understand, though, is why any democratic campaign would be dumb enough to dis wes clark and leave him stranded: how is that possibly helpful?

    disappointing i can live with (live long enough and it becomes your standard response to most things in this vale of tears), but dumb? no matter how tepid my support for obama, i never thought he’d do something dumb.

  • I strongly disagree with your premise — and Time’s — that Obama is backing away from Clark.

    Yes, Obama is saying we shouldn’t disparage military service. But that’s not what Clark did. Time says he did, but that’s a bald-faced lie.

  • Something tells me that the Obama campaign can cross Wesley Clark off their VP list.

    He ain’t accepting.

  • And here is a classic example of media bias towards McCain. The MSN EXPLICITLY buys into McCain’s world view that POW = Proven Leader.

    This should be a runaway election for Dems, the public hates the Republican’s and what they’ve done the nation over the past seven years. McCain has explicitly promised to continue, with no significant differences, all of Bush’s policies, from economic to foreign policy. On issue after issue they back Obama and Dem’s message.

    But the MSM loves BBQ and worships the ground McCain walks on.

    This is going to be close. Far too close.

  • I think we can see how the media is going to play the game this round. Clark obviously did not question whether McCain served admirably, he questioned the media narrative about McCain. Obama had to distance himself from what Clark didn’t say, because the media has made that nonexistent statement into a reality. It may be smarter to play it this way, but then again it could be smarter to go right at McCain’s alleged qualifications.

  • One big way Obama could have fixed this would be to denounce what people imagined Clark said while reinforcing the message that Clark actually said in a rephrased message. To say that McCain’s service isn’t in question, and then saying that even McCain isn’t trying to run on his war record as some sort of overriding qualification, as that would be absurd; and to insist that McCain is running on what he’s planning to do now (which is an extension of Bush’s presidency), and not what he did a few decades back.

    That way, he’s helping to pull out McCain’s war service as a platform to stand on, while reinforcing the fact that McCain is yet another Bush. So he’d look like the good guy, while also hurting McCain in two different ways. It’s not too late for this, Barack, so you might want to stop reading this message and get yoiur guys working on this.

  • One of the reasons for the feigned outrage is to weaken Wesley Clark as a VP candidate. It is ridiculous, you’re right, Clark never disparaged McCain’s service, just made a comment about job qualifiaction. They were also looking for a surrogage to take a hit to deflect the Charlie Black comments that had been out there a while.

  • I’m definitely thinking of picking up one of those “Get disappointed by someone new: Obama ’08” bumper stickers. The last two weaks (sic) have been pretty dreary.

    (note, I obviously mean “weeks.” I mistyped it as above, and decided that I should let my Freudian slip remain…)

  • I am little disturbed by how the Obama campaign has been reacting to this and other controversies. He has not responded to McCain basically calling him a liar. He ‘s been rather passive. Obama needs to start attacking McCain but do so with a smile on his face like he did with HRC. He also needs to call out Bush because he praised McCain for the passage of the GI Bill.

    With respect to the media love affair with McCain. I think that we need to write emails, contact TV stations and their sponsors. We need to question their ethics and objectivity.

  • Bud Day: “John [McCain] was slandered and reviled in the 2000 campaign in a way that denigrated his service enormously…

    By the surrogates of George W Bush who McCain now hugs all over.

    Irony. Meter. Pegs. Again.

  • I hope McCain and the media keep this bonfire burning. Let people decide whether McCain’s military record is a plus or a minus. This little controversy could force more coverage of what else he has or has not accomplished back in the days.

  • The problem, though, is that the Obama campaign’s response implicitly accepts the criticism offered by the media and the right — that Clark was attacking McCain’s military service, despite the fact that never actually happened.

    Yep.
    When you play defense you lose.
    Good bye Barack.
    You deserve to lose.

    Repugs… there is the weakness you’ve been waiting for.
    Eat this ham sandwich up…
    Send him back to Podunk Illinois…

  • I agree with you, howard. I’m disappointed by Obama’s retreat because conceding anything to the Republicans at a time when they are so unpopular is, as you point out, dumb.

    I don’t expect Obama to point out the hypocrisy of the party of the Swift Boat liars embracing this fauxtrauge, but their all-hands-on-deck on this issue should have been a clear signal of how scared they are this meme would catch on. Why Obama suddenly wants to let the loony right define the debate is a mystery. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

  • Given the freak-out, I guess it’s not too surprising that Obama has started to back away.

    I’d say given the last couple of weeks, it’s not too surprising. What happened to the candidate who wasn’t afraid to have these conversations? What happened to the candidate who wasn’t afraid of right-wing frames? He’s certainly become a shrinking violet. I’m not impressed with Obama’s post primary style at all.

    I guess we can cross Clark off the short list.

  • Clark obviously did not question whether McCain served admirably, he questioned the media narrative about McCain.

    Precisely — his matter-of-fact response absolutely flummoxed the interviewer, who clearly presumed that having a plane shot out from under McCain obviously qualified him to be President.

  • If getting shot down is so uniquely qualifying for the presidency, George H.W. Bush would have won a second term and John McCain would have won in 2000.

  • Enough of the Kumbyah campaign already! Why the hell should he have turned away from perfectly legitimate points made by Wes Clark? They;re points that need to be hammered from now until November. Obama just conceeded the whole “experience” point to the McCain campaign. Frankly speaking, he’s got to stop fawning over Mcain AND the Clintons. Its getting unctuous.

    Clark would have made a great running mate. He can talk tough and be the bully, the role the runningmate needs to fill. this blows Clark off the list. Obama won’t win (and doesn’t deserve to win) by saying the country “needs the clintons” and bowing down before John McCain. He needs to put the bulldozer in gear and drive right over all of them.

    He’s really disappointed these past couple of weeks.

  • Yeah, the Republicans really care about our men and women in service and just hate it when anyone speaks negatively of them. That’s why so many of them still have bandaids with little purple hearts on them…

    Sorry, but what Clark said was spot-on. The fact that McCain got shot down and spent time as a POW does not automatically qualify him for the role of President of the United States. McCain’s Senate record makes him unqualified to fly in Air Force One much like his piloting record makes him unqualified to pilot Air Force One.

  • Sorry, but I’m not buying into this ‘Obama caught off-guard and backs off’ argument. To me, it looks more like an orchestrated pointed attack followed by a mild ‘the senator does not agree with Mr Clark’s analysis’ response.

    McCain’s friends in the press corp – of which there are many – were always going to spin the Clark statements as an attack on his service. Unless the Obama campaign, which has shown a reassuring sure-footedness throughout both the primaries and now the general election season, has suddenly lost their touch, they would have expected this.

    The essence of what Clark said is out there and will resonate with more than a few people, especially independents. It’s actually the most successful seed to plant in giving voters a reason not to back McCain – sure, he served in the military but that doesn’t equip you to lead a country.

    If anything, it has the hallmarks of an agreed strategy between Obama HQ and Clark. If the political temperature around the remarks rises too high, then Obama has to separate himself from them. Republican have being doing it for years – get a proxy to go on the attack; say ‘it’s nothing to do with me’ and let the electorate digest the message.

    For the McCain camp, the best they can do it spin/distort the original message and make the faux outrage a bigger story than the criticism. McCain was doing quite well on this front, right up until the moment he wheeled out a 100 year-old man whose connections with the Swift Boat Veterans has become a byword for political lies and vicious, concerted personal attack.

    This is the man McCain has put up as the official campaign spokesman on truthiness. Oh dear.

  • howard –

    at this point, it should simply be understood that he’s an instinctive centrist with less ambition to overturn conventional narratives than he implied while running for the nomination.

    That’s not quite true. He has less ambition to overturn conventional narratives than many people PROJECTED ONTO HIM during the primary. His speeches, while eloquent, have mostly been devoid of any real “conventional narrative shake-ups”, other than what people wanted to read into them. His campaign has been run on hope with few if any commitments to anything real beyond the handful of things that the narrative says that a Democratic Presidential candidate is supposed to commit to. And one of the few “real” commitments he did make (standing up with Dodd to filibuster warrantless wiretapping) is now “inoperative”.

    I never quite understood why Left Blogistan devolved into such vociferous infighting over Clinton and Obama – they’re two of a kind. Instinctive centrists who will tack right as quickly as possible when necessary to get the votes. On the one issue where they differed (War in Iraq), I chalked their differences up mainly to political expediency and distance from the Village Bubble Effect – Obama had nothing to lose and everything to gain by rolling the dice and being a critic of a potentially disastrous war while he was sitting out in a state legislature, while Clinton had everything to lose by voting against a potentially successful and popular war while sitting in the Senate. It was enough to tip me to Obama when Edwards dropped out of the race, but only because I thought that he’d have to throw red meat to the liberal base to keep them satiated. Once again I guess I’ve misjudged just how little any political base (liberal or conservative) actually demands of their politicians.

  • at this point, it should simply be understood that he’s an instinctive centrist with less ambition to overturn conventional narratives than he implied while running for the nomination.

    Howard, I reject this line of thinking. I think the issue here is that Obama thinks of himself as the front-runner and has adopted a “don’t rock the boat” attitude. He feels he’s in the lead and that Republicans are doomed, and doesn’t think it pays to take any flashy risks that he’ll have to spend all his time explaining. And he’s probably right in that. In football terms, he just wants to play out the clock and make sure his team doesn’t fumble or toss an interception; while McCain needs to take big risks and force an error on Obama’s part by going all out. And not only is that a decent policy on Obama’s part, but by acting that way, it reinforces the idea that he’s in a confident lead; which helps his secure his lead. But if he tries to fight the media narrative, it’s a big play that might pay-off, but has huge risks and plays into McCain’s strategy. And he just doesn’t think that’s necessary.

    Hillary was his tough fight which is why he could go out stronger in the primary, but the general election is his to lose and he doesn’t want to blow it by having to spend all his energy defending against media attacks. So I don’t see this as an issue of him being a centrist at all, whether or not he is one, but one of risk assessment. He’s just trying to avoid unnecessary risks.

    I personally wish he wouldn’t do this, but there is a sense to it all. While I wish he’d fight the FISA thing and DEFINITELY think he screwed up with this Clark issue, it’s not necessarily a dumb policy. And just because he wants to play it safe by not giving the centrist-obsessed media anything to attack him on, doesn’t mean he’s one of them. Who knows, maybe he is. Or maybe he just doesn’t want to make this an uphill battle when he can avoid it. While the media isn’t nearly as influential as people imagine they are, they can certainly be a big distraction and can make this WAY harder than it needs to be.

    So in that case, this could be a smart policy that doesn’t reflect his real thinking. And it’s quite possible it’ll pay off far bigger than if he accepted the fight and rocked the boat. Again, I disagree with the decisions, but don’t necessarily think it’s dumb. If we’re still talking about this next week, it didn’t work. But otherwise, he might have made the right call.

  • This jumping on the band wagon reminds me very much of the press coverage during the lead up to the Iraq war. What kind of cover would the press give to McCain were he to trump up the rationale for opening another can of whoop ass in the Middle East?

    McCain and the press could be a bad mix for the US and the world.

  • It’s been a bad two weeks for the Obama campaign, and it seems to me it’s really their own fault. Although it’s not time to panic (yet), the wheels have started to come off a previously remarkably-disciplined campaign. And though I know no one wants to say this but, has anyone noticed that it’s begun to happen at the same time that the Obama campaign has started hiring Clinton campaign operatives? He’s suddenly become a DLC-esque uber-triagulating “pragmatist”. It’s really a heartbreak to see.

    What’s more, all of the experience in the primaries and concurrently, proved that hitting back hard — especially when the facts are so clearly on his side — did better for Obama than any sort of centrist stepping.

  • “Shortly thereafter, Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton added, “As he’s said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain’s service, and of course he rejects yesterday’s statement by General Clark.””

    This is shameful. Completely shameful.

    When Al Gore was widely misquoted on comments about “inventing the Internet” or “discovering” the problem at Love Canal, his first inclination was to apologize that his words may not have been sufficiently precise. His apologies only fed the cycle of misquotations and smear by giving his opponents the opportunity to claim “look, he admitted he said it.”

    The lesson learned from this is that if you are a high profile figure ready to do battle for Obama, watch your own back because you’re not going to get any support from the campaign when the right wing smears come back at you.

  • I get why people would want Obama to push back on this, but let’s be honest here folks…Clark’s comments, which should not have been controversial, have already been turned into “OMG! They’re attacking a POW!”

    Given that and the way the press fawns over McCain’s service, the story is already “set”. We’ve seen just by the way people are reacting to this story that they’ve missed the nuance in Clark’s statement, which is that being in the military doesn’t immediately qualify one to be president. Any kind of pushback by Obama was going to be cast as an attack by someone who didn’t serve against a man who was a POW. Unless the press corrects themselves, this kind of thing is a no win for Obama.

  • Given the freak-out, I guess it’s not too surprising that Obama has started to back away.

    Ah yes, let’s remember, it’s the duty of Democrats to apologize for telling the truth and to then bend over and spread for the Republicans and their lies, all supported by the MSM.

    THIS IS NOT THE WAY YOU WIN!!!! GODDAMNIT!!!

  • Funny thing–last night, CNN explicitly called what Clark had said “Swift Boating” McCain. So now, apparently, that’s not reserved for making stuff up in order to tear someone down–it’s any criticism, no matter how mild or well-founded.

  • I think the issue here is that Obama thinks of himself as the front-runner and has adopted a “don’t rock the boat” attitude. He feels he’s in the lead and that Republicans are doomed, and doesn’t think it pays to take any flashy risks that he’ll have to spend all his time explaining. And he’s probably right in that.

    Yeah, because playing not to lose worked out so well in 2000 and 2004.

    Sorry, I disagree. If the Republicans are drowning, throw them an anchor. Again, this fauxtrage is the Republicans’ effort to control the narrative because the facts, as usual, just don’t support them.

  • I think Fast Eddie @26 might be on to something. And if nothing else, imagine how this would play out from the other side. If a McCain supporter says something negative about Obama, McCain will denounce the statement, and then the media will talk about what the supporter said against Obama and how McCain took the highroad.

    And what do many liberals say about this when it happens from Republicans? They say it was part of a trick, to make the smear public, to get it talked about endlessly, but to make the candidate look like a good guy. Of course, the thing against McCain wasn’t a smear, but maybe it will get people talking about it. People aren’t stupid and rarely repeat the media’s narrative unless it’s something that sounds valid. And so while the media will reject this as an unfair smear of McCain, it has now become a serious subject of discussion; yet isn’t one that Obama has to mess his hands with. He immediately rejected it, so now it’s all McCain’s problem to deal with. And rather than it just being assumed that McCain’s military experience automatically qualifies him, it’s now a topic of discussion.

    Of course, I reject this logic when people insist that it works when the GOP tries it against Obama, and I don’t think the Obama people did it intentionally. But it’s always possible and doesn’t necessarily work against Obama. I personally would reject this kind of political jiu jitsu if I were running a campaign, but understand how it could work.

  • I wish Clark would have said “I don’t think graduating in the bottom 1% of your class at Annapolis and crashing five planes qualifies a person to be president.” How come that gets so little air time?

  • Either Maureen Dowd was right (yuck) and Obama is, indeed, “Obambi”, or else he didn’t hear the full clip, but only the snippets the MSM, spoon-fed by McCain, picked to deconstruct. And yes, the reaction is disappointing, to say the least; whatever happened to the idea of bringing a gun to the knife fight? Especially now, that SCOTUS lets him do so, even in DC?

    Bernard, @30,

    Yeah, I’ve been, kinda, wondering about the timing myself but, in the long run, I don’t think the new hires would have had that much impact on his campaign yet; it’s not as if there were all that many of them or all that powerful

  • What’s with all the dissent? He’s got game and he’s damn good at it! He’s going to freaking disappoint you some of the time so get used to it. Otherwise you all are in danger of becoming exactly what the right accused you of: moonie cult followers.

    He’s a man, a human-being trying to be our President. NOT a magician, NOT a messiah and NOT a saint.

    Please, please stop buying into the bullshit. It’s bad for ya!

  • Yeah, because playing not to lose worked out so well in 2000 and 2004.

    But we didn’t have a real lead in either of those elections. Particularly in 2004, which was Bush’s to lose. I don’t know why we now imagine that Kerry blew a shoo-in election, but Bush had HUGE HUGE advantages in that election, yet barely squeaked it out. And let’s not forget that Gore won in 2000. They won the Whitehouse because they cheated. While Gore and Kerry could have done better, we didn’t lose a fair fight. They cheated, they cheated, they cheated. But this time, even that’s not enough. The Republicans are hugely disorganized and scared and can only count on a big Obama blunder to win.

    Both Gore and Kerry needed a few big plays to actually pull ahead in their elections, and didn’t make them. But at this point, the only thing that can save McCain is a huge anti-Obama backlash. And trying to fight the media on FISA and this McCain-Clark thing would be two ways of generating that backlash. While I think he should have fought more, that’s a matter of changing this from Obama having the wind to his back and makes it so we’re fighting against the wind. Again, he could score big if he wins this battle, or he could fumble the ball and be stuck on the defensive. And when you’ve got a big lead, you don’t need to risk the ball.

  • I find it very typical of the liberals out there who are outraged that Clark’s comments are considered “out of context”, however the very same people will claim that John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Want a definition of a hypocrite? Look in the mirror.

  • Given the freak-out, I guess it’s not too surprising that Obama has started to back away.

    Maybe it’ll surprise some of you, but I just send the Obama folks the following email:

    Whatever happened to bringing a gun to a knife fight? This backing-off nonsense looks like a water pistol. An empty, smashed-by-the-family-sedan, made-in-China water pistol. Read the general’s entire statement in context, and then go after McCain and his cherry-picking whiners. Start calling the media to account for their truth-bending!

    Geez—do I have to declare total war on these single-synapse GOPer nitwits myself?

  • As noted over at Kleiman’s site, if you think that Clark is getting a raw deal, you can demonstrate your feelings in cold hard cash. I just made a $20.08 donation at http://securingamerica.com/

    And Mike Ryan, the only reason liberals are claiming that McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years is that he keeps saying that he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years!!. The fact that he says “as long as there are no casualties” is utterly irrelevant. First, it’s implausible to envision a scenario in which we can have tens or hundreds of thousands of Infidel troops in the middle of Iraq without violence. Second, we STILL shouldn’t have our army in Iraq for 100 years; that’s called imperialism, and I don’t think the USA should have any part of it.

    The very worst you can say about those attacks on McCain is that they are out of context. In contrast, the attacks on Clark are NOT “out of context.” They are lies, plain and simple. The press and the wingers are saying “Clark disparages McCain’s service.” The problem is that Clark did no such thing. Go read the transcript. He said “being shot down and held as a POW does not make you qualified to be President.” What, exactly, about that is incorrect??

  • When you play defense you lose.

    I’d just like to point out that Obama isn’t playing defense here. Rather, he’s refusing to accept a challenge. And while agreeing with Clark’s statement could give us a chance to play offense, it could also get us stuck on defense. Had Obama not rejected Clark’s statement, he’d be stuck having to defend it. And while we might be able to get the media to admit that Clark said anything wrong, that could have backfired. And the stronger Obama pushed offense on this, the harder it could have backfired against us and put us deeper into defense.

    And this is an issue that Obama clearly just wanted to avoid, and has now washed his hands of the whole thing. He rejected it right off the bat and now doesn’t need to discuss it at all. And while I certainly would have preferred if he had taken this as a chance to play offense, he declined it and has dropped any risk of this at all. But again, that’s not defense. This doesn’t put him on defensive. It just means that we’re not playing in this event.

    And as I suggested earlier, this won’t make the issue go away for McCain. People will continue to doubt whether his military experience qualifies him to be president. They just won’t be able to include Obama in the discussion and make this about him, which isn’t necessarily a bad place for us to be. McCain might reject the Obama-Muslim smear, but that doesn’t make it go away. McCain hasn’t necessarily won this debate and this DEFINITELY doesn’t put Obama on the defensive.

  • While Gore and Kerry could have done better, we didn’t lose a fair fight. They cheated, they cheated, they cheated.

    But playing defense let the Republicans get close enough so that they could cheat. Playing pat, consultant-driven, focus-goup pablum didn’t generate Obama’s appeal during the primary, and the American people are rejecting the Republican brand even now. Why concede anything to the pricks? Why imply that there’s legitimacy in anything the GOP has to say? The American people disagree — it’s the so-called “liberal media” that’s willing to carry water for the Repukes.

    Again — if the Republicans are drowning, throw them an anchor. The Democrats should do everything in their power to help the Republicans spend the generation in the wilderness they’ve earned.

  • You know that old saying that the election is ours to lose?

    Yup…we are on that path.

    Apparently, Obama did hire a bunch of Clinton people for she lost the primary because of really bad advice.

  • Given that and the way the press fawns over McCain’s service, the story is already “set”.

    No, no, no. The only way out is through. The Republicans (and their media allies) are always going to “set” the story. Frantically running from patch to patch of “safe ground” is exactly what’s cost the Democrats the recent elections AND their credibility. What Clark said is being misrepresented. Don’t apologize for the misrepresentation! “I am sorry Gen. Clark made those remarks he didn’t make.” ?? What the hell is that?

    Early Obama showed what we progs and libs have known for years: The only way out is through. The only hope of survival is to meet the attacks head on and refute them. Sure, the noise machine is going to keep yapping. But then we have to yell harder and longer. When you’ve got the actual videotaped facts on your side, don’t ever back off from them.

    This election is Obama’s to lose, and he’s going to do it unless he remembers how to win.

  • And while agreeing with Clark’s statement could give us a chance to play offense, it could also get us stuck on defense.

    It already has — you don’t imagine the Republicans are going to let the matter drop?

    Just as the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome” was an obvious — and all too successful — attempt to frame disagreement with Bush as out of bounds, the Repukes are once again trying to control the terms of debate. They’ve already tried to make McCain’s age — obviously a relevant issue — off limits to discussion; now they’re trying to make any pushback on McCain’s sio-called “war hero” narrative taboo.

    It’s the same mentality as Bush’s so-called diplomacy — we’ll talk if you agree to concede the major points up front. Everything’s going against the GOP this election, so they need to control the debate. It’s clear they aren’t going to stop even short of telling obvious lies. It’s bullshit. Obama’s a fool for going along with it.

  • doctor biobrain, i agree that kerry always faced an uphill race and that there were many factors at play with gore, but neither avoided the problem that obama is also reflecting here: an instinctive defensive crouch under certain circumstances (mostly having to do with national security and with fighting tough).

    i will say that virtually every sports fan in america will tell you that one of the worst strategies extant (which isn’t to say it doesn’t work sometimes) is playing not to lose.

    but let’s return to the bigger question: of course obama is an instinctive centrist. he’s made that very clear. it’s not the end of the world (given a choice between an instinctive centrist and a right-wing nutcase, it’s not hard to favor the instinctive centrist), but neither is it transformative (the supposed happy outcome of an obama presidency). the single most promising aspect about obama is that he looked like a democrat who didn’t adopt a defensive crouch, but that promise has evaporated.

    matthew yglesias made an interesting bar chart about a week ago out of polling data regarding intensity of feelings, and essentially obama had much stronger favorables among self-reported democrats than mccain did among self-reported republicans. what happens if and when (as i suspect is going on right now) that intensity of support among self-reported dems falls?

    as an example (and admittedly, i was never an intense obama supporter), i got a call from an obama fundraiser today. i said “take me off your list. i’m going to vote for obama, but insofar as he’s going to ‘move to the center,’ he can run on someone else’s nickel, not mine.”

    imagine if that experience is repeated a couple millions times: is playing not to lose really going to stand revealed as the best possible strategy?

    PS. my guess is that despite the hollering of the blowhards, obama could quite easily have toughed this one out. i could, of course, be wrong about that, but even if he took some flak, was he really going to lose votes over it? votes that made a difference (so what if obama loses arizona?)? as we all know, american elections are endless (it’s often forgotting that swift-boating didn’t start until much later in 2004) and maybe this won’t make much difference, but it still reads like a dumb play to me.

  • Calm down.

    Take a chill pill.

    I know many of you are looking for him to be a relentless Republican basher, but that’s never been him. His stance has always been that he respected McCain’s military service, but felt that he strongly disagreed with him on the issues.

    If he were to back Clark’s comments, the McCain campaign could spin that support of an attack on his bonafides, true or not, as inconsistent with his previous positions, which he’s expressed repeatedly.

    I’d say, let McCain rage and fume. Then let Obama, cool as a cucumber, respond, and make him look like a petulant child.

  • This is a disaster, because the Obama campaign threw Clark under the bus with “and of course he rejects yesterday’s statement by General Clark.” There’s no way out now. Clark is washed up, and Obama looks weak, and in effect has confirmed the claim that McCain is qualified for the presidency by virtue of being a POW.

    They didn’t think it through. They should have said the media has “misinterpreted” Clark’s statement as an attack on McCain’s military service. Obama should have explained it, in terms that a two year old could understand. He has enough credibility with the media to set the record straight. There is nothing wrong with saying military service does not necessarily qualify one for the role of commander-in-chief, and that’s all Clark said. Obama could have pulled it off, and chose not to.

    And now it’s a mess, and Clark has been gravely wounded.

  • Also—Bud Day and his VVLF (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation) are nothing more than tools for the war-without-end movement, and as with McCain, can easily be defined by the Latin phrase, Incurvatus in se. They want to gloat in the mirror? Fine—now feed them the mirror….

  • But playing defense let the Republicans get close enough so that they could cheat

    How is this defense? He’s not defending anything. As I suggested earlier, you’re wanting him to set himself up for needing to play defense, and disagree with Obama for refusing to accept the challenge. Those aren’t the same things at all. This isn’t Al Gore defending or not defending himself against the lame attack that he claimed to have invented the internet. Nor is this like Kerry defending himself against the Swiftboat smear. This is if the GOP had decided to not attack Gore or Kerry for these things. But refusing to attack isn’t the same as defending, particularly if you hadn’t done anything that requires defending. This isn’t defense. Kerry in particular should have attacked the shit out of Republicans for the Swiftboat smear and it should have worked against Bush. Kerry needed to go on the offensive, because his only other choice was defense. That’s not the situation Obama’s in at all.

    As for throwing Republicans an anchor, that’s the exact policy that gets them in trouble. They think they can push and push and push and attack the hell out of people without any sort of pushback against them, and now everybody hates them. And again, this year is NOTHING like the 2000 or 2004 elections. Compare Bush’s lousy 2004 victory with Reagan’s 1984 landslide. Now remember that the media LOVED Bush, government agencies were illegally pushing for Bush’s victory, and that we were at war; yet Bush almost lost against a long-winded “Massachussets liberal.” That was Bush’s election to lose and he almost did. Kerry needed a big play that never happened. Obama just needs to make sure not to fumble, which isn’t a bad policy. These elections just aren’t the same.

    And above all, this doesn’t necessarily help McCain. It’s offensive to suggest that Obama is a Muslim and McCain will never go there. But all the same, people are talking about it, which isn’t good for Obama. People are now discussing whether McCain’s military experience is a qualifier as president. That doesn’t help him. He wanted it as a no-brainer, and the more McCain supporters try to justify this absurd issue, the more they’ll come up empty. But had Obama adopted the attack, they’d be discussing him instead. All this did was put the focus on McCain, which may or may not work to his advantage. Again, I’d have preferred the attack, but reject that this was a dumb defensive move.

    I would like to point out that I have now sort of gone back on what I said in comments at the beginning of this post. It isn’t nearly as bad of a blunder as I first thought it was, though I still disagree with it.

  • Media obsession du jour.
    Right wing freak-fest du jour.

    I gotta say that while the comment may have come out a bit flippant, the media’s misunderstanding and obsession while typical, annoys me again! I know that they thrive on shit like this – I mean it isn’t like they don’t have real news…. but please.

    Of course it is no surprise the hypocrites on the right who mocked and belittled Kerry’s experience (a la little band-aids with purple hearts on them at the convention) would go “Woe is Me!” because it makes them (or one of theirs) look like a victim and gives them something to rant about.

    I have been paying attention to Clark since 2004 and so I have heard a lot of what he as to say. Never once in all these years have I heard him diss McCain’s service. He has pointed out that McCain running on his fighter pilot/POW experience is not a qualification for president. As for people who point out Obama doesn’t have military experience – well yes. But then he hasn’t centered his entire campaign around his military experience (because he doesn’t have any) like McCain is. I normally think Andrew Sullivan has a good take on things but I think he got this wrong. Since when is pointing out an opponent’s unquestioned persona “swift boating?”

    I can see why Obama may have distanced himself because he hoped this would get put behind him – but obviously it wasn’t going to happen but I don’t think he should have jumped to appease the Media/right wing rage machine’s squeaky wheel. I thought the Obama campaign was running a better ship than this. I guess I should remember this is politics, the place where the little things become big, and the big things get ignored.

  • I agree with Gregory on #47. We have to build a lead and keep it so large that the Republican’ts can’t steal the election this time without starting a freaking Civil War.

    And John Sidney McCan’t, convinced that Obama is evil (because he didn’t work with McCan’t on a bill once), is going along with Diabolding this election too. He’s already saying he will close the polling gap only 48 hours before the election in November, during a time frame where his pet corporate media can swamp the airwaves with false polling data which we won’t be able to refute.

    I’d love to believe that Obama is being clever on this, but it doesn’t seem that way.

  • Whether Clark and Obama had meticulously planned the General-attacks-candidate-rejects dance or not, is beside the point.

    The fact remains that the traditional media is so-entrenched in its ways, that you need to be very savvy to play it – we won’t be able to change the MSM’s fake balance, horse-race-loving, McCain-fawning ways before November.

    So Obama had better learn to beat McCain at his own media manipulation game – he needs an army of surrogates hammering McCain on how McCain is Bush’s 3rd term in terms of the economy, cronyism and war. If Obama can find such an army, he wins.

  • It’s pretty sad to see Obama embrace his inner-Dukakis in response to this flap.

    So much for bringing a gun to the knife fight.

  • How is this defense? He’s not defending anything.

    Actually, you’re right — he isn’t even defending, he’s conceding to the Republicans entirely.

    you’re wanting him to set himself up for needing to play defense

    Look at the Republicans — they should be playing defense, but they attack. On this issue the Democrats are right on the merits — being shot down as a bomber pilot doesnt’ qualify you to be President. Obama shouldn’t have to play defense — he could turn this debate into talking about McCain’s promising not to talk about his military record, and then doing it, and his opposition to expanding veteran’s benefits, all the while pointing out that beign a POW does not magically qualify you to be President. Attack their narrative — their perceived position of strength. Goodness knows they have bugger-all else.

    Instead, Obama not only passes on the opportunity to paint the Republicans, yet again, as the liars and hypocrites they are, but concedes their point. That isn’t defense — it’s surrender, and that plays into the Republican framing as well.

    FAIL

  • howard @51 – Can you please explain how this is playing defense on his part?

    And can you please explain how you know that he’s an instinctive centrist? I certainly think it’s possible, but believe that this position was based on risk assessment and Obama not wanting to take an unnecessary risk that could have backfired. And honestly, since when did military service as presidential qualifier become a rightwing-leftwing-centrist issue? The problem here isn’t that Obama isn’t confronting McCain. You’re wanting him to confront the media, which is surely an uphill battle. And while he might come out ahead, he might get stuck on the defensive. I don’t known if you’ve noticed this, but Republicans NEVER play defense. But they end up on the defensive anyway and if they refuse to play defense, they get hurt. Just because you don’t surrender doesn’t mean you’re on the offensive. As I’ve suggested repeatedly, Obama has just refused a challenge. He’s not on the defensive.

    And believe it or not, but elections are a binary “with us or against us” event. Either you support Obama or you don’t. And as I’m sure you realize, Obama needs your nickle far more than your vote. Individual votes are nothing but symbolic activities. But by refusing that nickle, you just made it a little harder for Obama to play offense and made it a little easier for McCain.

  • Actually, you’re right — he isn’t even defending, he’s conceding to the Republicans entirely.

    In what way? How was he being attacked?

    And sure, Obama could turn this into a debate about McCain, but more likely, the media would ONLY make this a debate about Obama and his “evil smear of military service.” Fair? Of course not. But do you really think Obama can change that with this one debate? No. He’d spend all his energy making a point that is self-evident. Anyone willing to listen to Obama already knows he’s right. And anyone who really believes that McCain’s military experience qualifies him as president is beyond Obama’s reach.

    And again, McCain hasn’t won anything. All that Obama did was excuse himself from the debate, but that doesn’t make the debate go away. As I suggested before, McCain will never suggest that Obama is a Muslim, but that doesn’t make the issue go away. And just as McCain is smart for ignoring the Muslim issue, perhaps Obama’s smart for not addressing this issue. But again, Republicans haven’t won anything. All that happened is that Obama is excused from having to deal with it, which his campaign seems to think would have been a distraction.

  • Doctor Biobrain:

    In football terms, he just wants to play out the clock . . . by acting that way, it reinforces the idea that he’s in a confident lead; which helps his secure his lead.

    Let me join the others above disagreeing as a matter of sport sense. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen basketball teams either at levels with no shot clock or prior to the college shot clock have a lead from playing a particular tempo of basketball, and then go into the 4-corners spread offense, trying to keep the ball from the other team but not trying to run any offense — and lose. You get out of rhythm, you get away from what got you the lead to begin with, you get away from what you are good at.

    In the prelim heats at the US Olympic Trials, the best sprinter in the United States nearly failed to qualify: Tyson Homosexual, er Gay, had a lead and pulled up too much too early and nearly came in 4th in the heat. You just don’t. And even moreso against Republicans: always be on offense.

    But the biggest disappointment is how he threw Clark under the bus. (1) it feeds into the meme about him throwing his grandma and Rev. Wright under the bus; (2) Clark was a big part of the bridge between the Obama and Clinton camps and Obama just burned it; (3) Clark was a great VP idea, but Obama just helped validate the meme that he is too intemperate so that is off the table.

    MissMudd above implores people to get real, that Obama will disappoint because he is just human, not a God, not the messiah. But if he is not something more, something above ordinary, what was all the anti-Clinton fuss about — if in the end Obama is just like Clinton only breaking a different barrier, a little younger, and with the good fortune to not be in the Senate already when AUMF was voted on?

  • In what way? How was he being attacked?

    Clark’s questioning of the media narrative surrounding McCain was being attacked. And rather than defend a fellow Democrat — much less take up the criticism of his rival’s media narrative — Obama weighed in on his opponent’s side.

    By doing so, Obama accepted the GOP/media narrative that military experience == qualification for President. Obama is therefore tacitly admitting that he isn’t a good choice for president due to lack of military experience, and reinforcing the right-wing narrative of Democrats as surrender monkeys.

    He’s also made it more difficult to question the Republicans’ hanging McCain’s qualifications on what he did 40 years ago as opposed to every fucking thing he’s done in the 40 years since.

    It’s a triple play!

  • Let me join the others above disagreeing as a matter of sport sense.

    Yet you ignore my football analogy, which I think is definitely more apt. Particularly as I see politics as being the slower game of momentum like Football, rather than the quicker game of ups and downs like basketball. In football and politics, it’s rare to see the losing team put lots of points on the board out of nowhere. In basketball, it happens much more frequently.

    Beyond that, I think this is just an issue of risk assessment. Sure, basketball teams can lose if they just try to wait out the clock, but I betcha it works far more than it doesn’t work. And I’d much rather be the team with the lead trying to wait out the clock than to be the team trying to come from behind. I’m sure you’d agree.

    Of course, when I play videogame sports, I generally go all out and never wait out the clock. I want to rack up the big points and never back down. But I suppose if I were a coach and my job was on the line, I’d play it smart, rather than fun. It’s much easier to sit on the sidelines and want the big play all the time, but it’s a little different when you’re truly responsible for it. Obama’s campaign made a quick decision to not accept this challenge, and while I’d have preferred him to do otherwise, I don’t see how this hurts him.

  • doctor biobrain, i call obama an instinctive centrist because everything about his actual policy positions says he’s an instinctive centrist, from his caution on national health care to his sellout on FISA to his position on the death penalty.

    as for playing defense or not to lose or any word choice you care: here’s what obama could have said: “i respect john mccain’s service to country, but i do not, for a second, believe that serving in the military makes your opinions about national security more credible, just as general clark said”

    instead, obama made clark (an effective surrogate) look bad and accepted the implicit notion that saint john must never be criticized, lest the blowhards keep blowing. there’s nothing “cool” about that.

  • God would I like to slap some sense into Bill Burton’s mouth. He keeps trying not to lose rather than trying to win by conceding that Clark misspoke or said anything that wasn’t true. He should just go kiss Bud’s ass and beg for Clark forgiveness. He’s a horrible spokesperson for Obama’s campaign. It’s a grave mistake to keep moving to the right or agreeing with them even partially. Bill, put some tape over that mouth and do a reality check. Clark was right and respectful too. Will Obama not stand up for anybody?

  • By doing so, Obama accepted the GOP/media narrative…

    But that ISN’T what the issue was about. While us sane people realize that Clark hadn’t said anything wrong and was stating the fact that McCain’s military experience doesn’t qualify him for president, that’s not what the media said this was. To them, Clark had attacked McCain unfairly and was saying that there was something wrong with McCain having been in the military. And so to defend Clark, Obama would have needed to first get the media to change how they saw this, which was a big battle to begin with. And I doubt many of them would have

    But…because they misinterpreted what this issue was about, all McCain won was the right to say his military record was good; and that’s it. But that doesn’t establish that his service makes him more qualified to be president. Remember, that’s not what they think this is about. This misunderstanding cuts both ways and the media doesn’t think this is about what it should have been about.

    And beyond that, I really don’t think this works outside the media. Most people ignore what they say. The media wanted Clinton impeached while a strong majority of Americans approved of him. Americans started hating Bush LONG before the media would even acknowledge it, and even now the media pretends Bush isn’t as unpopular as he is. The truth is that the media has very little influence. They can think anything they want about McCain, but anyone who would have listened to Obama’s attacks are unlikely to accept the absurd logic that getting shot down qualifies anyone to be president.

  • I don’t really any way to spin this. It’s disappointing, embarrassing, even, that Obama would reject Clark’s comments when they’re completely honest & truthful.

    Flip-flop, shmip-shmop, I really hope Obama revisits this and realizes Clark said nothing wrong, in essence rejecting Bill Burton saying Obama rejects Clark’s comments.

    Earlier today I was writing about how Clark as a VP candidate would give Obama an edge on military issues that the MSM assumes is going to go to McCain. I can’t see how rejecting Clark’s statements helps Obama’s cause at all. It makes Obama look weak and defensive.

    I know yesterday one of the worthless talking heads was arguing that Obama needs to “stand up” to the Democratic party, like that “maverick” John McCain does. It was a stupid argument and if this is Obama’s response…the word I keep coming back to is disappointed.

    I’m not a diehard Obama worshipper, and the main reasons I voted for him was that a: Edwards dropped out by the time my state primary came around and b: Hillary is awful. But I was really hoping his talking about making effective changes for the better was true. Between bending on telcom immunity and now leaving Clark twisting in the wind, where is the change? Where is the hope?

  • doctor biobrain, i think we’ve gotten to the heart of your defense of obama, and yes, if your defense is that the media is corrupt and we need to play along with it to get elected, then there are two counters: a.) part of obama’s promise was that he would disrupt traditional narratives; b.) how does playing along with this narrative actually help obama get elected?

    i wrote in comment 66 a version of what obama could have said (he also could have sent bill burton out to say “have you people looked at the actual interview general clark gave? could you please tell me what the problem is?”) that didn’t require an acceptance of the traditional narrative. (i’m reminded, btw, of the traditional narrative that surrounded terri schiavo in the media, and dems didn’t cower, and waddya know? the traditional narrative turned out to be supported by a small minority of the american public and life went on. we didn’t need to upend every single aspect of current media practice.)

    (and don’t even get me started about how the social security debate demonstrated how easy it is to counter traditional narratives when dems put their minds to it.)

  • God damn it. Obama, you moronic ass. Stop trying to prove me wrong. You spent the entire primary showing that you had learned the correct lessons from 2000 and 2004: you don’t let the bad guys frame the debate and you don’t back down from the truth. Did you have a traumatic brain injury while I wasn’t looking? First the FISA flip-flop, and now this.

    Clarke was absolutely correct and you know it. Hell, you yourself have said *the exact same thing* several times already, about how McCain’s experience in Vietnam doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t qualified to be President.

    Why on Earth are you *backing away* from this? What is wrong with you?!

  • i call obama an instinctive centrist because everything about his actual policy positions says he’s an instinctive centrist,

    But I insist that each of those issues were the safe issue that would have caused Obama far more headache than it would have helped. And while that could make him a centrist, that’s also a risk assessment issue. And that’s why I say that it’s impossible to guess at his motives, because these are the exact things he’d do in either case. And as a reminder, Hillary Clinton had a stronger healthcare policy, yet she was the DEFINITION of a centrist. Literally. And the idea that any presidential candidates healthcare policy was going to become enacted as is is pure folly, as I’m sure you realize.

    But the bigger point is that you don’t really know Obama’s motives and are guessing just like everyone else. You can pretend to be a mindreader, but you’re only hurting Obama when you insist that your guesses are factual. Maybe he’s a centrist, or maybe he’s just playing a smart political strategy that you disagree with. Only a mindreader knows the difference.

    As for as defense, again, that’s not how this works. You’re trying to fit Obama’s actions into a framework that it doesn’t really exist in. If McCain rejects something a surrogate says, we assume it’s part of a tricky offensive. I don’t really think this is part of a plan, but I do think this can work out for us. Life is about risks and you have to pick your battles carefully. Obama’s campaign decided this wasn’t a battle worth fighting, but that’s not defense. McCain isn’t defending all of his surrogates who smear Obama as a radical Muslim, but he’s clearly not on the defensive. And I’m sure quite a few of his supporters are upset about that too, but he won’t take the bait. Some battles shouldn’t be fought and declining to fight a battle is not the same as losing that battle. Only a loser thinks he has to be victorious against every challenge. A winner knows to fight the battles he has a good chance of winning, and Obama’s campaign decided this wasn’t that issue. And again, people aren’t stupid and don’t need to be told that McCain’s experience several decades ago doesn’t qualify him to be president.

    And to restate it a different way: You were wanting Obama to defend Clark’s statements against a media that didn’t believe a defense existed. And that’s a big problem here: It would only have been an offense if Obama’s statements had gotten through. But if the media refused to listen, then it would have been defense. Obama chose instead to decline this battle. That isn’t defense. Defending Clark would have been.

  • I can’t believe the Obama apologists are actually trying to justify his campaign’s decision to throw Clark under the bus. All this defense offense crap is just mental masturbation. It was wrong plain and simple. Clark said nothing wrong or disrespectful period.

    Forget how the media is trying to frame it and trying to act politically correct, Obama needs to start standing up for what is right. “He rejects yesterday’s statements by Clark”…WTF kind of idiot would say such a thing. Did he just accept what the press was saying rather than viewing Clark’s statements himself. It was a major blunder and deserves no respect. It falls right in line with the democratic capitualtion. Just plain wrong. You stand up for what is right, right then and Buxton blew it badly with that hideous statement. A real fucking idiot. Better than McCain is turning into at least more tolerable.

  • I almost have to wonder if Obama received a very credible 3AM call saying that it would be fatal for him(or someone else) if he was to win this election. Oh wait, that sort of stuff can never happen in America.

  • I’m just going to restate what I wrote at the end of my last comment:

    Defending Clark would have been playing defense. It’s only offense if your charges would have hit McCain and stuck. But because the media had already made up their minds, anything Obama said would merely have been a defense. Or at best, he’d have had to spend quite a bit of energy to push this back into being an offensive attack, and it would have been defensive until he finally broke through; which might not have happened.

    If you spend your time explaining what you or your surrogates said, you’re on defense. If you say “Clark didn’t say this, he said that,” that’s defense. If the media is saying “Obama says that Clark’s smear on McCain was fair and accurate,” that’s defense. Again, we wouldn’t be playing offense on this. We would have been on defense. We’d be defending what Clark said, and then would be defending what Obama said. That’s unfair, but that’s what this would have been. What Clark said was an offensive move. Defending what Clark said was a defensive move.

    Sorry, but that’s how this works. I know that we know the truth, but this isn’t about us. This is about the media, and had Obama tried to fight the media on this, he’d be playing defense and might have lost big. This wasn’t about McCain’s qualifications for president. This was about smearing military service, which is ok against Dems but somehow wrong against Repubs. Life’s unfair, but that doesn’t mean we need to fight unnecessary battles and Obama apparently didn’t want to risk looking anti-military when he didn’t need to. While I’d have prefer that Obama defended Obama, I can understand why he didn’t.

  • doctor biobrain, you’re working too hard! i have no idea what “framework” you think i’m trying to fit something into.

    wes clark said exactly the same thing yesterday that he’s said before; obama has said similar things before.

    but this time the right through a hissy fit and obama conceded the hissy fit had merit. from this, he gains not a single vote and he risks some of his existing support.

    i think he had a choice; you think he didn’t, and therein lies the rub.

    btw: on the actual policy issues, clinton was, generally speaking, slightly to obama’s left, but yes, she’s a centrist too. so what? that doesn’t mean that obama isn’t a centrist.

  • that coldly rational pragmaticm is all well and good Doctor Biobrain, but all decisions have consequences: when no one wants to go lead the charge for Obama, no one wants to stand up for him because they don’t know if he’ll throw them to the media wolves for their troubles, no one should be shocked. He just neutered one of his best surrogages, one of his best VP candidates, and one of his best bridges to some of the other groups of Dems who were not yet convinced. That is a big price to pay that I really don’t think you’ve spun your (or Obama’s) way around yet.

  • Hmm. HRC says McCain is more qualified to be CoC and Obama supporters have her hide. Clark says McCain is not qualified to be CoC and Obama himself undercuts Clark’s comments.

    Maybe HRC was right. Maybe Obama agrees that McCain is more qualified to be CoC.

  • What a load, Dr. Bio. When would it be politically expedient to stand up for the truth? YOU are talking APPEASEMENT!

  • Oh, why doesn’t Obama just join the DLC and have done with it? Wes Clark said that flying a bomber and getting shot down are not qualifications for the presidency. It’s true, they’re not. Obama needs to get a spine and stick up for those that are sticking up for him. He’s making it harder and harder for me to hold my nose and vote for him.

  • Some of you people must be awfully young.

    The best you can hope for in a President is someone who has a feel for world politics and keeps us out of unnecessary wars.
    On the domestic side it’s all politics and horse-trading. Being smart and paying attention also helps.

  • -daze, good question!

    If Obama had been in the Senate and voted for the AUMF, I wouldn’t vote for him. That was the clincher for me and still is with regard to Hillary, as I have always believed that if a politician votes for a war, then their kids should be first on the front line. Chelsea wasn’t there. If that wasn’t enough, Hillary’s sense of entitlement did the rest. That being said, had she been the winner, I’d back her and defend her 1000%.

    Others here got hives about the FISA vote. Me? I don’t believe we really have all that much privacy in the first place and if you think you do, you are deceiving yourselves. How many satellites do you have flying over your head right now? I think there’s at least 5 over the LA area, not to mention all the cams in stores and on highways and wherever else they choose to put them. Besides that, telephone privacy in the scheme of things is a relatively new thing. I’m old enough to have used “party lines” plus, I was one of the lucky few who’s mom was a telephone operator in my small town of 5000. She and all my aunts and cousins too. These ladies were the original spies! Mom didn’t tell me until recently all the stories from listening in. Suffice it to say, they all knew everything going down in 5 counties! Once in a while, even the FBI would come in and have them listen in on suspects. It was just accepted back then so I learned not to be discussing building bombs and coaching my terror cells on the phone.

    If the government wants to find out about me, they will, with or without the telecom spying. However, I don’t do nefarious things on my computer, I pay my taxes (on time!) and don’t usually speed. So I’m just not worried that the NSA or Homeland Security is peeping in on me. And if they are, have at it. They’ll hear mom reciting all her ailments, me making appointments for dog vaccinations or me talking to soldiers. (I have an online support group for active military.)

    I want Obama to win. I see a nay vote for the FISA bill as the first nail in the coffin for his candidacy because he would be immediately slammed as soft on terrorism just as he is now being attacked for lack of military service.

    People who blog aren’t yet attuned to the power their hasty words have, so they overreact and armchair quarterback while effectively lending more fuel to the opponent. I dare say that anyone here has a true bead on what’s going on in either campaign, yet some of you belly up to the stump as if you did offering utterly damaging criticisms of the same man you adored 2 months ago.

    I like to think he and his advisers are a bit smarter than me and you guys, so I will continue believe he knows what he’s doing.

    Finally, and most importantly, I have this monstrous crush on the man. I’m totally hopeless! 😉

  • Clark was right. Obviously. And he’s said it before, without a fuss or fury. Yet Dems seemed so scared of Republican criticism! The only way Obama can lose now is to appear weak, and triangulating looks weak. How many times do the Dems have to learn this?

  • Clark was right. Obviously. And he’s said it before, without a fuss or fury. Yet Dems seemed so scared of Republican criticism! The only way Obama can lose now is to appear weak, and triangulating looks weak. How many times do the Dems have to learn this?

  • On June 30th, 2008 at 5:30 pm, SF said: “Clark was right. Obviously. And he’s said it before, without a fuss or fury. Yet Dems seemed so scared of Republican criticism! The only way Obama can lose now is to appear weak, and triangulating looks weak. How many times do the Dems have to learn this?”

    The thing is, the Dems never have learned it and apparently they never will.

  • Maybe it isn’t surprising that Obama backed away, but it is nonetheless disappointing. What Clark actually said was public, on tape, broadcast, and no doubt is on YouTube. Obama is supposed to be the candidate who doesn’t behave like a conventional politician; he’s supposed to be the kind of candidate who says, “No, that’s not what General Clark said, this is what he said.”

    Instead, Obama condemns remarks that Clark never even made, and thus sheds confusion rather than light.

    And for the love of Pete, whoever Pete is: being a war veteran, being a war HERO even, being a PRISONER OF WAR even, does not instantly qualify anybody to be President of the United States. We must continue to talk sensibly.

  • What a load, Dr. Bio. When would it be politically expedient to stand up for the truth? YOU are talking APPEASEMENT!

    How true. I totally forgot that the American people always obey what the media says and that if a presidential candidate doesn’t reinforce an attack that nobody listens to it. Which is why everyone supported the Clinton impeachment, everyone still loves Bush, everyone thinks we need to stay in Iraq forever, and nobody thinks Obama is a Muslim becomes McCain won’t tell them that he is one.

    Will you people ever learn that there is more to this campaign than what Obama says? Appeasement, all because Obama won’t play defense. It must suck to live in a world where every election is the last one you lost. But as I said before, this isn’t 2000 or 2004. This isn’t even 1996 or 1992. We’re going to win, but it’s not going to help if we insist on tossing him overboard every time he doesn’t act the way you wanted Kerry to act in 2004.

    And again, while I’d have preferred that he handled this differently, this is far from any sort of appeasement, concession, or surrender. He just refused to continue an attack the media was convinced wasn’t fair. But this doesn’t mean that McCain is off the hook and this could really work against McCain. And no, defending and explaining your surrogate’s statements aren’t offense.

  • On June 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pm, Doctor Biobrain said:

    Defending Clark would have been playing defense. It’s only offense if your charges would have hit McCain and stuck. But because the media had already made up their minds, anything Obama said would merely have been a defense. Or at best, he’d have had to spend quite a bit of energy to push this back into being an offensive attack, and it would have been defensive until he finally broke through; which might not have happened.

    ______________________

    I totally disagree. Granted, no matter WHAT Obama said, it would be misconstrued by the MSM, but he’s not going to win anyway with the help of the MSM. He’s going to win voter by voter, changing opinions and hearts and minds with each speech, each ad and each time an Obama supporter speaks out against a McCain supporter. And when he doesn’t defend Clark in a time such as this, it makes his supporters that much less passionate, much less likely to make an effort.

    Obama could have – SHOULD HAVE – repeated what Clark said, and broke it down so that the ONLY people who would’ve found offense with it are people who are looking, specifically, to be offended.:

    “Perhaps General Clark wasn’t as clear as he should’ve been on this issue. While I normally wouldn’t presume to speak for the man, I know him, and I know what’s in his heart & I feel safe clarifying his statements. We both admire, respect, and thank John McCain for his service in the military during the Vietnam War. Neither one of us is belittling his service or his patriotism. But having experience in the military doesn’t necessarily make you an effective commander, any more than, say, having experience with music automatically makes you able to compose a symphony. You can make the same argument about me for my LACK of military experience, though I’m proud to let my political history and my current proposals speak for my qualifications for the Presidency.”

    “In his POLITICAL career, McCain has exhibited poor judgment many times. His military experience has NOTHING to do with that poor judgment, yet some people will often use his military experience as a buffer, to excuse him from criticism or even from a thorough review of his opinions and proposed policies. Running for President means your life, your history and your proposed future, is under a microscope to be dissected every moment of the day, His status as a veteran doesn’t excuse him from that kind of scrutiny, and if any part of his agenda is bad for America, his military background doesn’t make his agenda suddenly better.”

    “I firmly believe that was the point General Clark was making, and if anyone in the Republican party or in the media disagrees with that point, perhaps they should tell us WHY they disagree. What makes someone who fought in the Vietnam War automatically a better candidate than someone who didn’t. I’ll remind those of you paying attention that the Democratic party ran Vietnam War veterans in 2000 AND 2004, and the Republican Party didn’t seem to think veteran status was all that important THEN.”

    “And please, remember: This is not about denigrating McCain’s military experience, because I’m not doing that & General Clark CERTAINLY did not do that. This is about asking what it is about his military experience and his status as a POW that makes him better-qualified than me or anyone else who was in the Republican primary, to be president. If you can’t answer that question yourself, than perhaps that means it’s a moot point, that BOTH of our pasts only matter in that they’ve made us the people we are today, and what matters is what we bring to the table NOW, what we’ve done for America in the past and what we intend to do for the future.”

    There. Fu*k it. I’m not a politician, not a political speechwriter, and not a big fan of tooting my own horn, but had Obama made THAT point in any similar way to that, he would’ve gone a long way towards negating its impact. Instead, he’s pushed forth the narrative that you gotta leave Johnny McCain alone because he’s a WAR HERO, and Clark shouldn’t have been so mean. And that kind of pandering on Obama’s part breaks my heart.

  • 38.On June 30th, 2008 at 2:41 pm, Doctor Biobrain said: I think Fast Eddie @26 might be on to something. And if nothing else, imagine how this would play out from the other side. If a McCain supporter says something negative about Obama, McCain will denounce the statement, and then the media will talk about what the supporter said against Obama and how McCain took the highroad.

    Democrats aren’t allowed to take the highroad in the narrative, it’s against village rules and traditions. The lead debate on CNN’s Election Center this hour was titled “Obama’s Patriotism?” When you’re a Democrat, you either fight back hard or bend over and take it Obama is choosing the latter.

  • Apparently, CBS news and the rest of the “Obama For President” main stream media takes the American public for morons, and sadly, the leftist minions are probably correct in that assumption.

    This will be the Obama machine’s tactic throughout the election. He will be praised by leftist media outlets like CBS for “taking the high road” while he sends out sniveling hatchetmen like WELLSELEY (Can you pronounce it Barack?) Clark to smear McCain. Some of us are on to your crap, and hopefully enough of the public will wise up enough to see through your propaganda. Shame on Mr. 57 States, and shame on the press.

  • I am disappointed.

    Senator Obama gives appearance as though he is participating in a standard political ploy. Has has thrown Wes Clark to the wolves. He takes the high road while his subordinates fight with McCain’s subordinates.

    Clark told the truth and offered an opinion. But he PRAISED McCain. He did not claim at all that the Senator’s service DISqualifies him in any way from the pPreidency. He praised that service as heroic and said only it does not automatically qualify him for office. And THTA was in response to a question and not a statement he offered on his own.

    I admire Senator Obama. But I confess I admired other candidates too. He hasa a tendency to OVER state and OVER simplify to a degree which creates poor IMPRESSIONS of his thought.

    Here, he apears to aquiece to “knee jerk”reaction to General Clark when to defend his supporter would be the admirable and ethyical thing to do.

  • I am watching moron pundits on MSNBC who are claiming that they are not taking Clark’s words out of conduct, but of course that is what they are doing…it is just so silly….so, what I get from this is that to question, in any form, a vet’s (mccain’s) wartime experience and it’s relation to foreign policy decision making ability is taboo.

    This explains why I will be writing in the schizophrenic PTSD vietnam vet who is always wearing headphones and picking up trash outside the place I work. Obviously, his vietnam experience qualifies him to make foreign policy decisions and to point out that the war made him crazy and that he was just a grunt, and not in a strategic, decision making capacity demeans his service.

    So, believing that he is the most qualified person to lead this country, I will be writing him in;at least he has a more proactive conservation policy and will clean up things around the country.

  • Doctor Biobrain, I could almost agree with you except for this:

    He just refused to continue an attack the media was convinced wasn’t fair.

    If that were true, my reaction might be similar to yours. But he didn’t merely refuse to continue Clark’s attack, he actively and affirmatively sided with those attacking Clark. There are a million things he could have said – not the least of which would be simply point out the truth that Clark effusively praised McCain’s military service, or to gently put some distance between he and Clark noting that a man with 4 stars is entitled to his opinion on the role of past military service on today’s presidency. He didn’t. Clark went out on a limb fighting for Obama and Obama cut the limb off behind him.

  • As I’ve explained to my wife, what the Obama campaign did that was wrong is respond to what the Republican’ts claimed that Wesley Clark said, not what Clark did say.

    Now William Bennett says it doesn’t matter what a liberal pundit says about Clark being right, because the Obama campaign said it was wrong. And they will stick with that.

    And as DXM says, that’s how you lose.

  • If Obama had supported Gen. Clark, Bob Scheiffer would have popped up from under his bed and loudly yelled, “REALLY?!”, even louder than how the bastard yelled at the general.

    I don’t give a shit about the controversy, it’ll die away. But fucking old fart, Bob Scheiffer. I hate his guts.

  • Thanks, DB.

    That was the most realistic overview on Obama that I’ve read over the past few weeks.

    Personally, I don’t think there’s anything Obama could have said (even saying nothing) that wouldn’t have been turned into a negative by the MSM and the mouthbreathers on talk radio.

    Speak out against Clark: “He’s throwing his supporters under the bus.

    Speak out for Clark: “Obama, who never served his country, is attacking McCain’s military record.”

    Say absolutely nothing at all: “The Obama camp is apparently unwilling to make any comment. Is this a case of the Democratic candidate trying to avoid taking a stand on this issue?”

    So from what I see, it’s pretty much a “can’t win for shit” situation for Obama.

  • Speak out against Clark: “He’s throwing his supporters under the bus.

    Speak out for Clark: “Obama, who never served his country, is attacking McCain’s military record.”

    Say absolutely nothing at all: “The Obama camp is apparently unwilling to make any comment. Is this a case of the Democratic candidate trying to avoid taking a stand on this issue?”

    So from what I see, it’s pretty much a “can’t win for shit” situation for Obama.

    I dont disagree with that – but then the question is “which is the least bad of hte three choices?”

    One way to decide that might be, oh, i dunno, which is in the best interest of truth?

    Another might be to ask which best projects the strength that Gore and Kerry lacked to push back against Repub nonsense?

    Yet another might be to ask whether it is better to take a hit being loyal to supporters or being “loyal” to John McCain?

    And a last suggestion might be “which keeps my options most open for use of surrogates, VP choices, and lines of attack on McCain?”

    Coincidentally, all of these point the same direction. If you are going to take a hit no matter what you do, make your stand with General Clark, not against him.

    DB and others can try and spin this as the “pragmatic” “political” thing to do all the live long day. It isn’t. That is just a nice way of saying it is “politic as usual,” which weakes the Obambrand and is how Dems have lost time an time again. Hanging Clark out, and thereby validating the MSM slander of him, was wrong on principle and, even looking pragmatically, wrong politically.

    Really, even those of us who wholeheartedly support him and seek to see a Democrat elected in November don’t have to defend every thing he says or does. Team Obama made a mistake yesterday.

  • zhoward@10 got the same suspciion I did.
    This gives Obama a convenient excuse not to pick Clark as veep. This, I suspect, is because he didn’t want Clark but has overreacted to serve as cover.

    Apparently, this was subtle enough to throw almost everyone.
    Ob ama is VERY smart.
    Not always in a good way.

    I hope he uses his finesse and cunning for good once he’s president, he could be truly great.

    I find it troubling ethically, but I’m voting for him. Angels don’t get to the US Senate untainted.

  • Wesley Clark trips all over himself every time he says anything.

    Last go around, Clark crowed endlessly about Kerry’s service, and how horrible it was that anyone would doubt Kerry’s integrity. He held Kerry up as a hero and ABSOLUTELY advertised his service as a reason why Kerry was fit to be commander in chief.

    Now he flip flops right on his face – as he usually does.

    Conservatives flip flop from time to time, but not to this obvious level.

    Clark is a disgrace to the uniform and it’s a tragedy our soldiers and vets had to listen to him denigrate their service in such a way.

    He had NO reason to even bring the issue up other than to attack something honorable about another man.

    What a truly stupid man he is.

    Danny Vice
    http://www.theweeklyvice.com

    • Comments are closed.