×
Responding to my post on Wesley Clark, Alex Massie argues that the problem with Clark's comments is that they focused on the wrong part of John McCain's war experience. "The element of McCain's military service that earns - justifiably - the greatest respect, is that he was offered early release from the Hanoi Hilton and refused an early ticket home," says Massie. "Now, strictly speaking, this doesn't mean he's likely to be a better or worse President than the average politician either. But it does suggest that he was, in this instance, a braver man than you or I would be."But John McCain's bravery is not under question. Let's go back to the tape:
CLARK: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.CLARK: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.It was Schieffer who brought up the fact that McCain was shot down, and he did so in response to a statement Clark made about "executive responsibility." In this context, Clark's rejoinder was the correct one: The question at hand is the presidency, not John McCain's bravery. But Schieffer is invoking McCain's fateful flight in context of McCain's claims to being better suited for the presidency. One could phrase their reply more felicitously than Clark did, but questioning Schieffer's assumptions here is the correct play.Now, you can argue, as Alex says, that this is all true, but though "one may disapprove of the extent to which politics turns on questions of character and biography...it's pretty pointless to do so." But that's weirdly meta, and it's the mindset that justifies Schieffer and others continually letting John McCain's war experience serve as a substitute for, say, a detectable level of engagement with American social policy. The job of commentators like Massie and me, and the job of people like Clark who are brought on political talkshows to make good points, is to try and argue with elements of the political narrative that don't make sense and are just plain wrong. It's the McCain campaign's job to try and mine those comments for political advantage, and so be it. But no reason we need to help them. If Massie, like me, actually believes Clark's comments were correct, then the fact that they could be spun as offensive is not sufficient reason to spin them as offensive.
