Last week my friend Guy promoted as a possible Barack Obama running mate a person I had not really considered, partly because I thought he was too old: 2004 presidential candidate Wesley Clark, a former general, one of "Clinton's generals," who had commanded part of our military activity in the former Yugoslavia and who had endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton. With Clinton out, Clark now supports Obama. Responding to a direct question from CBS News' Bob Schieffer, earlier today Clark went just a little further than he had before, saying by flying a plane and surviving as a prisoner of war Senator John McCain didn't necessarily gain command experience - like Clark has - that might give him a big leg up on Obama in terms of national security credentials. (This may harken back to the 2004 presidential race, when talking heads said that Clark and pundits forgot about the labor/management/class conflict in the armed services - that enlisted people don't generally like admirals and generals (like General Clark), and therefore it was not surprising that veterans didn't flock to Clark's campaign. If this were true, Clark's new line - that the fact that McCain's military service did not involve him serving in high command - may not help Obama - and may connect with conceptions of Obama/his allies as elitists.)
The McCain campaign quickly came down hard on Clark - going after - with prodding - what most people have seen as a core of McCain's character/experience claims - his military service in Vietnam and POW experience - and within hours Obama had also distanced himself from these comments. While on the whole I think questioning McCain's war record is a mistake - though I'm impressed that Clark - if even making a mistake - has quickly jumped on the Obama bandwagon - this is exactly what the Swift Boat ads did to Senator John Kerry's war record - largely unfairly, I think - and - even though I doubt it will work here - it just scratches the surface of what the left has started on blogs, etc. Even Noam Chomsky suggested that McCain is a war criminal, for bombing North Vietnam civilian targets and then caring - as he probably did - and these folks draw a direct line between McCain's wartime activities in Vietnam and his support for the Iraq war - and also point out that - after a time - McCain succumbed and - after being tortured (despite antiwar activists' claim at the time that no U.S. soldiers were tortured at the "Hanoi Hilton") - appeared in anti-U.S. propaganda films (something I'd never heard). McCain has explained this in his book - "Every man has a breaking point, and I reached mine" - and also pointed out that he never went for the ultimate prize: early release. Still, it's interesting to hear about the left trying to "Swift boat" McCain, even though I suspect it's not particularly fair. We'll see if General Clark has - implicitly - put himself forward - or taken himself backward - of the vice presidential running by making these comments.
Guy said Clark's biggest negative for running for vice president: he doesn't appear to want it, and he hasn't ever indicated he was interested. But I'm now intrigued, even though I disagree with Clark's anti-McCain strategy today.
Incidentally, I am not a big fan of Governor Romney as McCain's running mate, something that may be in the works, although an alternative mentioned today- 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman - is intriguing as a possibility.
2 comments:
It appears that it’s all down to Alaska Gov Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, and team Romney fears Palin now has the best shot, so Romney camp is mounting a blogosphere-wide assault via Politico.
The tip-off that Politico is just a “promote Romney” piece is that it mentions EVERY NAME in the next two tiers of Veep prospects EXCEPT SARAH PALIN!!! — even names far more unlikely than Palin (since Romney camp knows Palin is the ONLY ONE who tops — I’ll say tops by far — Romney as McCain’s best pick).
Bottom line, Romney and Politico fear Palin most — as do the Dems and the MSM. (By the way, the Dems and MSM do not fear Romney the most — which says a lot.)
AOL, a main on-line pro-Obama/pro-Dem player, is now carrying the Politico piece promoting Romney buzz.
Clearly AOL wants McCain and the GOP to lose the general elction — hence they gladly promote Romney (no mention of Palin).
Also, CNN had Romney — kind of out of the blue — attacking Obama. Again, CNN, wanting McCain and the GOP to lose, gladly promotes Romney (to attempt to avert the Palin threat).
All the media frenzy which will surround the remarkable Palin “story” — essentially free to McCain — will be worth millions and millions of dollars of coverage and PR (more money than Romney would provide anyway).
A comment I tried to insert before: when General Clark tried running for president in 2004 and failed to ignite a lot of enthusiasm among veterans, talking heads theorized that Clark and his backers missed a basic axiom of labor/management relations/class conflict. Lower-level military enlisted people (and junior officers?) don't really like officers/commanders etc. If this is the case, Clark dissing McCain because he wasn't a top commander -whatever the actual merits of the argument - is surely a losing argument, one that won't even strike a chord with veterans.
Post a Comment