Predictable, but still really annoying. If Obama keeps playing not to lose, he WILL lose.

But still, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that by condemning Clark's line of argument, the Obama camp is strengthening the McCain camp's ability to suggest that his POW bio does make him more qualified to be president than Obama is. And that really is one of the key rationales for McCain's candidacy.

Yup. Score one for McCain...

Come on greg, the primary is over. Is the memo from the clinton camp to play for 2012? What's the clintons' position on telecom immunity by the way? I'm surprised we haven't had an update on that one.

You are putting a silly spin on obama's words. He has repeatedly said the same thing that he said today. It's nothing new and he is not strengthening mcbush's pow status as allegedly qualifying him to be president. That's just silly.

Clark: Clinton flak to the bitter, bitter end.

And they probably saw no percentage in getting into an in-the-weeds dispute about what Clark meant.

No. Clark's comment could have been more specific, but as it was, they were just red meat for the McCain campaign to scream "He's questioning my military service!" even though Clark was doing nothing of the sort.

This b.s. has already overshadowed the patriotism speech. Score a big one for the McCain campaign, and a big zero for the Obama campaign.

There was nothing false or untrue about what Clark said.

Arghhh! Hitting your opponent on his strength is what wins elections!

Greg:

I think you and Josh are overreacting to Obama's statement. I believe this was more of a rejection of the dismissive TONE and personal nature of the comment by Clark. Surely if Clark had said "Serving in the military, whether in a time of war or otherwise, is not a unique qualification to be President" neither McCain nor anyone else would have raised a stink. Instead, he attacked McCain SPECIFICALLY (flying in a plane and being shot down), that's where he crossed the line and that's why his statement was rebuked/condemned.

It doesn't concede the implied point that McCain's POW status makes him uniquely qualified to be POTUS. What does though is the handwringing by folks on this thread and throughout the blogosphere.

At least that's my read of the events from California.

All (especially Greg & TPM): If you want this to go away, ignore it and cover the patriotism speech with the same fawning ("Props!") stenography that you have covered every word out of Hillary Clinton's mouth since after her non-concession.

Greg, before you start giving Obama strategic advice, shouldn't you go out to the lot and finish scraping that "Hillary '08" sticker off Mr. Blumenthal's car window?

So when did Greg decide he is a better strategist than Obama? This is one of several criticisms lately on TalkingPointsMemo of Obama's campaign strategy. And you became an expert how? Like to hear all your campaign experience.

Obama is a gutless fuck.
Bombin' Johnnie's a war criminal...
All of us were who participated in that horrific mess.
But BJ was among the worst: flying low-level bombing runs against civilian and infra-structure targets in Hanoi. He never even saw the people he indiscriminately killed and maimed. The first time he saw the faces of his victims was when a couple of them swam down to extricate him from the wreckage of his shot-down A-4.
He always cvlaimed to have been tortureed,. But his injuries were almost all incvurred in the crash and the rescue. Vietnamese docs treated him without anaesthesia? Well there wasn't much of that available in Hanoi at the time, and they mostly used it to east the pains of the people BJ was killing and maiming.
Chuy, people. Get it right, at least...

The MSM would never allow Obama to attack McCain on this issue so its best to silence it fast.

The Obama campaign is acting like knaves.

Clark did exactly what needs to be done on the military experience issue. Indeed, the rationale must be expanded and further explained.

Clark should be embraced because he not only understands, but also exemplifies the appropriate type of military service that does prepare one to be president.

The following is the appropriate response and attack line to McCain's military experience:

1. The Democrats will not indulge in the kind of ad hominem attacks on McCain that the Republicans indulged in against John Kerry. Thus we will not make an issue of McCain's propaganda appearances while in captivity. They were the result of torture and pressure.

2. We will discuss the type of military experience that makes a real difference in being a commander in chief of the military. Eisenhower had that kind of experience. He was the C in C for Europe during WWII where he took part in planning and implementing military strategy on a grand scale. Eisenhower had to hold together and manage international alliances involving the British, Free French, Russians and a host of others. This is the kind of experience that really provides experience that aids a president.

3. Mere military experience (even encompassing heroism) does not provide practical command, strategic or diplomatic skills to be president. John Kennedy and George Bush served with heroism during WWII but neither gained substantive military or diplomatic skills that would have measurably improved preparedness as C in C. The elder Bush gained valuable experience as Director CIA and as VP. However, being a fighter pilot during WWII did not provide the kind of practical military management experience to qualify as C in C as did Kennedy's experience with leading the crew of the PT 109 through its peril.

The US, its soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen diod NOTHING "honorable" in Vietnam.
Nothing...and yep, i was one of 'em...

The Obama camp made a serious mistake here. They could have avoided all the stuff about what Clark meant, but just said something to the effect: Senator Obama honors the service of McCain and all who wore the uniform of our country. Criticisms of patriotism of candidates are out of bounds -- and we did not hear that in this instance -- but any citizen has the right to raise questions about McCain's experience as it relates to foreign policy judgement and preparation to be president.

Obama cannot cede this territory. This is the first matter on which I have found his campaign unwise and actually craven on something that matters. Throughout this campaign, McCain has been making outrageous claims to the effect that he gets an automatic pass on commander in chief qualifications -- and everyone not in the military has questions to answer. This is unAmerican and cannot be allowed to stand.

Theda S.

Don't want to be a garden-party skunk, but let's get real people.

What Charlie Black said last week about Terrorism and Republican prospects is undoubtedly true, notwithstanding that fact that it was impolitic to state it so baldly.

What Wes Clark said yesterday is also undoubtedly true, again notwithstanding the fact that it was impolitic to say so.

Perfect and complementary exemplars of Michael Kinsley's famous dictum that in Washington, a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.

The Obama folks are off their game. I agree with Zod (and I kneel before him, as well) - they seem to be playing the prevent defense. As a Cleveland Browns fan who remembers John Elway's famous Drive, count me as one who doesn't believe that's a winning strategy.

As for changing the subject, whatever - they're going to be all over Obama for not being a patriot anyway, so why not make a stand and defend a perfectly sensible statement by Clark? (What is up with the MSM, by the way? I mean, is there any greater evidence that they're McCain's defense attorneys? Sheesh.)

My thoughts on this non-event are here.

I think the plan was for Clark--the military man--to attack McCain's perceived strength. Obama then repudiates it and in the hope that he'll look decent. It didn't quite work. But the idea that McCain's war experience doesn't necesarrily qualify him to be president is out there.

Obama Campaign Condemns Wes Clark's Comments About McCain.

Fine.

But where is McCain to condemn the sorted comments about Obama? After all, there have been so many attacks on Obama's patriotism, the candidate felt a need to make a speech about his patriotism.

Where is McCain to condemn the attacks on Michelle Obama? Where is McCain to condemn the questioning of Barack Obama's patriotism?

Wake me when McCain condemns those attacks.

Jeebus, I think Clark has a right to his opinion. Why does Obama feel the need to saying anything other than Clark is speaking for himself, why take on Clark's word as if Obama had said them, since Obama did not say anything.

And I guess this means Clark is out as VP. And it looks like this knee jerk reaction puts Obama in full flight mode now, why is he acting so cowardly of late. Is Obama going to stop running anytime soon?

God, it just keeps getting worse.

Check out this "article" on CNN about "Obama responds to attacks on his patriotism":

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/30/campaign.wrap/index.html

Some key excerpts:

Obama has been defending his patriotism ever since the beginning of the primary season, when he was first criticized for not wearing a flag pin -- which he now does much more frequently -- and when false rumors began circulating that he did not say the Pledge of Allegiance.

A widely distributed photo also seemed to show him failing to place his hand over his heart during a rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner."

Obama's wife, Michelle, also was criticized about her patriotism, after telling an audience at a campaign event, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."

Obama's campaign said she was just excited about the campaign's grassroots support, but her words still provided fodder for her husband's opponents....

Patriotism, [Obama] said, must involve the willingness to sacrifice. He called attention to the service of John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate.

Just a reminder: Hillary did not win. All she ended up with was alot of debt. I don't think we should take her campaign's necessity to destroy Obama as the strategy to employ in the presidential election in June. If Obama was way behind maybe, but he's not. The soundbite by Clark being run on the MSM is unfortunate, because the rest of his comments were fair. But hitting McCain as a POW is not acceptable. This election is not going to be decided today and I don't think we should put Obama's strategy under microscopic investigation on a daily basis.

Obama needs to retake control of the narrative very very soon. the campaign has been listless since the primary ended. That tight smart campaign that emerged during the primary needs to reappear.

Um, it's standard operating procedure to back away from personal attacks made by your surrogates.

But Obama was supposed to deliver us from standard political operating procedure. That was supposed to be "old politics of the past," while Obama is supposed to be about the new. Right?

This is strategy folks. Remember his questioning of Hillary's 35 years and then backing away from it.

It stayed in the blogs as a point of debate for or against both obama and clinton. Then the message made it's way into the mainstream (after they defended her for awhile). But it stayed in the talking point conversation of the web and person to person.

He is playing hardball and the campaign who is concerned is the one who is outraged.

When a campaign becomes outraged it either sees it as an opening for or against them.

Obama has played this well.

This is now allowed in the public debate as a question against McCain's perceived strength weakness. When the media finds a point when it becomes fatal to McCain they will jump on it like sharks to blood in the water.

This is McCain's October surprise. If something does happen in the Fall his military record will come into question but not in the way that he controls the dialogue.

Obama people and McCain people realized someone just got served, and though momentarily it seems like Obama, in the long run it is really McCain.

I think some people need to take a vacation from the election. Obama is not in a desperate position--McCain is the one who isn't looking too good. And Obama hasn't even started spending much money on ads yet. McCain knows he is in trouble and is thrashing around for any lifesaver to grab onto. Besides, Bush/McCain's policy on Al Queda is getting hit hard in the media today, which backs up exactly what Obama has been saying about the war in Iraq keeping us from going after the terrorists. Obama wins the day.

Obama has spent the last two weeks undercutting everything that generated excitement about his candidacy by asininely swallowing the CW that he needs to run toward the center to get elected. This will do nothing but make him look weak and without core values to those who have not yet decided to vote for him, while alienating those who are inclined to vote for him - even campaign for him.

He's swallowed the Kool-aid - it may yet sink him.

You're blaming this on Clintonites?

Please, the Obama camp did this all by themselves.

What Gen. Clark said was entirely on the mark, and the substance of it was entirely mishandled by the MSM, particularly MSNBC, who incorrectly characterized it as an attack on McCain's patriotism. It was that distortion, and not the actual substance, which forced Obama to disown his remarks.

Before Bud Day gets away with any more distortions, the MSM ought to point out that Gen. Clark not only was wounded in Vietnam, but was awarded a Silver Star for continuing to lead his men to victory in an engagement despite having four bullets in him. He also has a couple of decades more military experience than McCain, including a stint at NATO commander, during which time he forced Slobodan Milosevic to back down in Bosnia.

I think this was a smart approach. He's not caving in, he's being consistent. He has been nothing but respectful about McCain's military service, and to change now would give McCain an opportunity to call him a liar for all those times he said that McCain served with honor, etc.

And now what are the McCain people doing? The stupidest possible thing: they aren't accepting his apology. Then, when McCain tries to take a punch at him, Obama has the advantage. He can appear graceful and conciliatory, where McCain can look like an ungracious asshole.

Our key to success is to make McCain look like what he essentially is: heir to the Bush Presidency, with all it's bitter hatreds, small-minded pettiness, and decisions made from the nutsack rather than the cerebral cortex.

Much as we'd like to bloody their noses every time, give as good as we get, Obama hasn't won up to this point by getting involved in that kind of character attack. He's won by holding up a mirror to his opponents, and letting their own character flaws get the best of them.

Trust Obama. He's not selling us out, he's letting McCain be the asshole, the wailing infant.

Today NY Times article should bring new questions to Lieberman's statement about the probability of the U.S. getting hit by terrorists during the first year of the next presidency. The question Bush/McCain and Lieberman should have to answer is why is Al Queda so strong and remain a threat to us seven years after 9/11? The article explains why we are still in danger, because Bush has put the resources into Iraq and weakened our fight against the terrorists' organization. So what did you say Lieberman about an attack? You dumb jerk!

Looks like I've been wrong all along! Obama really is a "sleeper" candidate . . . for the Republicans.

At least we can all sleep better knowing the FISA bill will pass.

Everyone here who has aggressively criticized Obama for rejecting Gen. Clark's statement needs, I think, to take a deep breath and take a step back for a moment.

Look, there is a difference between saying something that is true, and effectively communicating that truth.

Yes, what Gen. Clark said was true. Being a Navy pilot, getting shot down, and being a POW does not, in and of itself, qualify someone to be President.

However, there are better ways of saying this other than using the words "Getting shot down isn’t a qualification to be President." That is simply a gift of a sound bite to the McCain camp. True or not the statement comes across as callous and insensitive, especially considering that McCain spent seven years as a POW.

You simply cannot say something like that or in that way, particularly since our traditional media is (as everyone should know by now) absolutely incapable of reporting context or, evidently, comprehending simple statements made using the English language: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202161.php

In addition, why even broach the topic of McCain’s service? The focus of any discussion of McCain regarding his views and/or experience on Foreign Policy or National Security should be his APPAULING JUDGMENT. He has been wrong about EVERYTHING. We have video of him saying the war was essentially over in May of 2003. He cannot get Shiite and Sunni straight.

Now, Obama KNOWS THIS, which is why he always makes it a point to state his admiration for McCain’s service- no questions asked; while focusing instead on McCain's awful policy positions, statements, and judgment.

Gen. Clark strayed from that strategy, with ENTIRELY predictable results.

Now all we are hearing today- all anyone can talk about is this “attack” on McCain’s service (which, again, is ridiculous, but with our McCain adoring media, so very predictable); while Obama’s excellent speech on patriotism this morning gets completely ignored.

Rather than hearing about the intelligent and thoughtful speech on patriotism that was delivered this morning by the candidate who has been repeatedly and unjustly smeared for a “lack of patriotism,” the media cycle today is focusing on how the Obama campaign has “smeared” John McCain’s military service.

Again, Obama understood this would happen, which is why he sought to neutralize it by ceding the point, that McCain’s service was heroic, and focusing instead on McCain’s horrible foreign policies and poor judgment.

But now, Gen. Clark has un-neutralized the issue of McCain’s service, giving the McCain campaign a rather large gift which not only captures the news cycle but allows their candidate to appear as a victim’s of “swift boating” (of all things). (Btw, wouldn’t it been wonderful if the media had been as quick to defend Kerry from very real, vicious, and dishonest attacks on his very real heroism and patriotism, as they’ve been in defending McCain from honest but poorly worded statements that say nothing about his service or his patriotism? That’s our “liberal” media for you.)

And if Obama does anything other than reject the statement completely and with out reservation- then it will become the gift that keeps on giving.

Finally, I understand people's disappointment with Obama's position on the FISA bill; as Obama was/is supposed to do a better job about not allowing the GOP to frame what constitutes being "tough on terror" or what is needed to "keep America safe."

But this one? I completely understand. I'm not happy about it. But again, it’s about understanding the reality about how our traditional media works; it’s about NOT creating distractions that pull attention away from the narrative that you are trying to build.

By rejecting the statement, Obama cuts the legs off of this story. It will likely still be in the news for a day or two, because our media is just that shallow and “gaffe” addicted (particularly on “gaffes” criticizing something they believe to be sacrosanct). But hopefully, with Obama’s rejection of Gen. Clark’s statement, this story will continue distract for only a couple of days more, rather than an entire week (or more).

I was just starting to get over some of the shock of the much delayed and lame stance the Obama campaign took on the FISA issue and start to overlook that for the broader picture.

Now this. Unbelievable. Again, the standard Democratic position of showing strength by immediately cowering to demands from the Right.

Seems to me that the vaunted heroism surrounding McCain's time as a POW is his major strength on the campaign trail. If he were the Democratic candidate we would already be being told that he single-handedly sold out the United States in Vietnam when he was captive. Oh no, let's not talk about the primary selling point of the McCain campaign--he says it's off limits so we better not go there.

This is about fake outrage, and how to handle fake outrage. This episode is also a clear signal that McCain is willing and ready to jettison what remains of his character. Someone with no honor is dangerous, and the sad apart about all this is that the type of behavior the McCain camp is indulging in, works.

I disagree with the sentiment that this is a mistake by Obama. The last thing he wants is to make an issue out of who's more patriotic. Don't even go there - he can't win that one.

This election is about getting the hell out of Iraq.

This election is about reversing the disastrous Bush economic policies.

This election is about restoring honesty and integrity to the White House.

It is NOT about who's more patriotic, and making this an issue just plays into the Republican strategy of framing the issue.

If the McCain campaign wants to disparage Clark, they need to release McCain's full Military record, which they can't do because he was a first class F*&#-up.

They focus on his POW time because the rest of his career was so lackluster, one might not even know he had a career in the military after returning home.

Clark is right. The time as a POW does not qualify him to be president... it qualifies him to run a prison. Clark would be wrong in his comments were the McCain camp willing to release the records post POW, and that detailed military record would show McCain's aptitude or lack thereof in evaluations by his superiors. The can't have it both ways.

Q: What does "change you can count on" sound like?

A: Thump-thump.

Q: What does being tossed under a bus sound like?

A: Change you can count on.

I heard ever word of West Clark's interview and can not understand what was unpatriotic about Clark's statement. I agree, I think the Obama camp went overboard on this one. McCain may be patriotic but he is not Presidential material. He can be one without having what it takes for the other. I guess this takes West Clark out of the running for VP.

If the situation wasn't so sad + disappointing, it'd be funny reading all these attempts justify or divine what it is Obama/Obama's campaign intended when he rebuked Clark for the true -- if blunt -- statement about McCain....

This is the real Obama folks -- and there's more to come. He never stood for "change" -- there was never anything in his record to back up his pretty words. And now it looks like he's biting the progressive hand(s) that feeds him -- looks like he just took out MoveOn as well.

It's painful watching Obama morphing into Kerry. He seems much more concerned about not making mistakes than about being authentic. He reminds me of that saying, "when you try to please everybody, you end up ultimately pleasing nobody." The more that Obama struggles not to offend voters in the middle and on the right, the more he ends up looking like like a weak phony to everyone.

Obama didn't need to either approve or condemn Clark's remarks. He has better things to talk about, and Clark is not an employee of the Obama campaign. Clark is just another American citizen, voicing his own opinion and stating the obvious facts. The most that Obama should have said is "We're not responsible for what former commanders of the military are saying about John McCain." But Obama is so keen to appear to be something that he's not that he ends up on the defensive, even when someone else is speaking.

Just like with Kerry, Obama is losing the national debate because the media is going to keep putting him on the defensive in this way. The media smells blood now and it will make the election all about character and military service if it can, primarily because Obama has shown very little character in the past few weeks and everyone knows it. The media is currently re-defining Obama the same way it did with Kerry.

After the convention in 2004, John Kerry had a press conference on the edge of the Grand Canyon and proferred that he "probably would have invaded Iraq" as well, if he had been in George Bush's shoes.

This campaign is beginning to lose oxygen - as it approaches the edge of it's own canyon, judging by triangulating events of recent weeks.

Clark was dead-on right! Obama needs to go right after McCain's perceived strength, his military service, exactly the way that Bush went right after Kerry's.

Clark was perfectly poised to do just that! He made the distinction between PATRIOTISM and EXPERIENCE.

McCain has ZERO executive experience. Yet he's posing as having the "experience to lead our nation in troubled times" and attacking Obama for NOT having that experience!

Posted by Cugel
June 30, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink

ROFLMAO! Excuse me, but what executive experience does Obama have? Absolutely NONE!!! Obama is running on a speech that he gave to an anti-war crowd. He never risked a thing. Obama is a first term senator who has done hardly anything except campaign for Prez. So tell me, what qualifies Obama to be Prez? His speeches? McCain has far more experience than Obama. As did Hillary (who was the best choice of all).

Just because Obama was able to become the presumptive Dem nominee does not mean that he'll win against McCain using the usual Obama technique of slandering his opponent. Just because you don't care about experience and want to live in a dream world of "new politics" (even after Obama daily flip-flops, proving himself to be an "old politics" guy), and just because your starry eyed love for Obama has you thinking that giving one speech is all one needs to be POTUS doesn't mean that the rest of the US is that foolish. Obama may have won the Dem primary because of the far left anti-war crowd, but now he is running in the general where people care about a lot more than whether you gave a speech to an anti-war crowd or not. I didn't like McCain at first since I didn't really know him and I'd been influenced by the typical New Yorker hysteria about anyone who is Republican, but now that I've gotten to know more about him, I respect him more - far more than Obama! And I'm an east coast ivy leaguer semi-far left type. Imagine how the "heartland" must feel about him. Not a good idea for Obama's campaign to start attacking McCain's military service. It'll only make people question what exactly has Obama done for his country other than self-serving things to get him elected.

I'm expecting an apology from Clark before the night is through. That will complete the Rightwing "Circle of Disinformation" maneuver.

Well played!