Keep to the High Ground

I find Jon Soltz's June 30th post "Right On General Clark. Do Not Back Down." both shortsighted and embarrassing. As a strong supporter of Senator Obama and a volunteer with his veterans' effort, I believe that Wes Clark's comments are out of bounds.

Let me be clear, Jon Soltz's criticisms of Senator McCain's record on non-support of veterans is a fact based fair target. Senator McCain did not support the New GI Bill of Rights and he has not supported proposals to increase "dwell time" between combat deployments. Further, Senator McCain has, as far as I can determine, never sat on the Veterans Affairs Committee. And his record of supporting the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) legislative priorities hovers around 33%. All of this is fair game and Senator Obama can proudly contrast his service and accomplishments on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and his near 90% DAV support with that of Senator McCain. Senator Obama can fight that fight from the high ground.

But, no matter how the words are parsed, Wes Clark's comments about Senator McCain's military record came across as demeaning and disparaging. When the headline in the International Herald Tribune, much read by the military overseas, reads: "Democrat With military background assails McCain's credentials" the damage is done. We should have learned from the misbegotten and misnamed "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" that questioning someone's military record lowers the tone and substance of the campaign and distracts from the real issues. Wes Clark's words will now become the issue, even though he was not speaking for the campaign, rather than Senator McCain's miserable record on supporting veterans.

Beyond these tactical considerations, attacking McCain's military record contradicts the entire thrust of the Obama campaign. Senator Obama has told his campaign staff and volunteers to run a respectful and positive campaign. Many of Senator Clinton's supporters are still angry with Senator Obama because he won. But there are very few, if any, specific instances where Senator Obama attacked Senator Clinton personally and many instances where he passed up opportunities to do so. Senator Obama seems to realize that you cannot bring the Democratic Party or the country together if your campaign is based on personal attack.

So, what I would say to my fellow Rhodes Scholar and White House Fellow friend, Wes Clark, is to stay away from the military record, it will only hurt our cause, and stick to the veterans' record where we have the high ground.

Comments

[SamThornton]

It's instructive that the usual MSM suspects who've seemingly made a career out of kissing Sen. McCain's rear end should get things as completely wrong as does Mr. Klass, while us members of the great unwashed public get it so completely right.

The proposition that driving an airplane qualifies one for anything other than driving an airplane is ludicrous on its face.

Someday -- maybe -- the vast legions of McCain apologists and enablers in the press will someday wake up and smell the coffee. Until then, it's off to the BBC I go, Hi Ho, Hi Ho.

[Rule Of Law]

I saw nothing "disrespectful" in Stolz's article. To the contrary, he lauded the man for his contributions during the war, but brought more light to bear on his shortcomings as a laid out by General Clark.

The man doesn't support our troops! And he has no real Command in wartime experience. Truth sometimes hurts.

[ProudLiberalDan]

"We should have learned from the misbegotten and misnamed "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" that questioning someone's military record lowers the tone and substance of the campaign and distracts from the real issues."

------------------

Great, another Democrat wants to take a pillow to a knife fight.

In case you don't remember, the Swift Boat attacks worked (in part because Kerry refused to stand up and fight.) "Rising above the attack" doesn't work in politics.

Rove proved this right. You not only need to attack your opponent's vulnerability, you need to confront his strength head on.

Unlike what the Swift Boat group said, what Clark said was accurate.

[XME]

He didn't attack his military record...h­e simply said his military record in itself does not make him qualified to run the country. This is a fact and is in no way disparaging McCain's service or record, and I think the problem is that what Wes Clark said has been completely distorted. The only one being attacked is General Clark!

[woodsywizz]

The fact that so-called reporters cannot understand invective as dished out on elementary-school playgrounds has nothing to do with the truth of Gen. Clark's statements. Gen. Clark rose to four-star rank through characteristic requirements more rigorous than George W. Bush has ever faced, he who sold his soul to Dick Cheney to maintain power.

No matter the manufactured firestorm, what the "reporter" asked Gen. Clark is the crux: flying an airplane and getting shot down has NOTHING TO DO WITH RUNNING A NATION.

I was a bemedalled aircrew member during DESERT STORM. My squadron lost a higher percentage of airmen than any other in the entire war. Getting scared, and flying anyway, is part of the job. But it doesn't make for automatic Presidential material.

Nor does getting shot down, and being tortured for five years. I respect Sen. McCain for his service, which I have tried to emulate IN SPIRIT (I was a flight engineer, not a pilot).

Just as Gen. Clark said, Presidential qualifications are entirely different from military ones. A President must coax, guide, and lead. A military commander "commands", with the explicit threat of imprisonment for disobedience.

It's a whole different thing. Instead of whining about the backlash, how about pointing out the contrast in character in the two candidates? Obama is Presidential. McCain is a flustery old flip-flopper desperate for power in his waning years.

[allonfla]

Totally agree with you!

[Marcee]

You and I must have viewed a different Face the Nation. I replayed Clark's comments again this morning after reading about the dust up. As far as I could see, Clark was, in fact, laudatory of McCain's service pointing out the McCain was a hero to many in the military. He credited him with being the voice of the Senate Armed Services and praised his many travels throughout the world. Yes, Clark pointed out that getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down are not qualifications to become president. I believe that is true. Clearly the point Clark was making was that military service and executive experience aren't the same thing. Being shot out of a plane is not a prerequisite for executive office excellence. If McCain intends to use his military service as one of his assets making him ready to be president then why isn't it fair game for people to analyze, challenge, praise and criticize? I feel uncomfortable with this notion that we don't dare comment on McCain's military service for fear of being unpatriotic, dishonerable or, worse yet, politically incorrect. Clark's comment was an analysis of McCain's military service as it relates to executive office preparation. Frankly, I found Obama's rejection of Clark 's comment limp wristed and lacking courage. The Obama campaign is playing the middle and will regret it in November.

[Gma11]

Sheesh!! Clark did NOT attack McCain's MILITARY RECORD!!

He made the very simple statement that McCain's experiences are not executive experiences.

It's absolutely crazy how Kerry was attacked, personally and professionally, but we can't make a very simple logical point about McCain's experience?!

Somebody call the Vatican. The man's ready for sainthood.

[Gma11]

Geesh!! Clark did NOT attack McCain's MILITARY RECORD!!