John Aravosis at Americablog asks, in a headline, Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military? stating “It’s not “nice” to ask the question, but it’s actually a pretty good question.”
Ok, I will grant that being a POW does not equal direct preparation for being President of the United States, nor does it tell one anything about the person’s military record prior to capture, but I fail to see how bringing it up in this way is a) much of an argument or b) damaging to McCain.
There is little doubt that this particular portion of McCain biography is powerful and generates sympathy (reasons enough for political opponents of McCain to leave it alone). Further, because he withstood the torture that was unleashed upon him, and refused to be released early as well as refused to be used as a tool of North Vietnamese propaganda,1 all speak to strength of character, which certainly is evidence of leadership potential, and therefore a possible reason why he should the whole affair can be seen as an argument for his readiness to be the President.
Beyond that, having been a soldier in tough times might make him more empathetic to the plight of our soldiers currently in battle, and having been tortured should make him more prone to refuse Bush administration policies in terms of prisoner treatment. As such, this slice of biography is no small line in the resume that he is proffering to the American people.
As such, I am sure that the McCain campaign is ecstatic that supporters for Obama are going around raising the question of McCain’s military service.
And the Blogosphere isn’t the only place that the issue is being raised. General Wesley Clark is also bringing it up, as he did on Face the Nation this weekend (source: the Politico):
“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”
To be fair, is anyone saying that being shot down is what makes McCain qualified? Not only is that a simplification, it has (like the Americablog post noted above) the potential to simultaneously make Clark look bad for seeming to be dismissive of McCain’s war record while reminding people of that record. None of this is smart politics.2
I concur with James Joyner: “it’s a dangerous game for him [Obama] to send out surrogates to minimize McCain’s service.” And while Obama may not have known that that was what Clark was going to say, the bottom line is that that Obama campaign need to try and control the message that their allies are spreading, especially in major venues like the Sunday shows.
Ben Smith at the Politico looks into some examples of this issue here: Some on left target McCain’s war record.
I can see, at this stage, nothing fruitful for the Obama camp coming from attacks on McCain’s military service. The only thing that is vaguely useful for them is that Viet Nam was a long time ago, and it may underscore McCain’s age. However, there are plenty of other ways to do that. They also have to remember that the reason that John Kerry’s military service was a viable avenue for attack is what Kerry did after he returned from Viet Nam. Kerry’s antiwar activities retroactively tainted his military service in the eyes of many. McCain’s tenure as a tortured POW practically sanctifies his military service. As such, Obama and his allies would be wise to forget using it as a fruitful route for critique.
Sphere: Related Content- Yes, there was at least one anti-American statement that McCain made after being tortured, but he also took beatings when he refused to do other such statements. Further, the fact that he refused early release if his fellow captives where not also released demonstrated a great deal of character. He refused special treatment that he could have received because his father was an admiral. [↩]
- As a side note, bringing up McCain’s lack of executive experience (”he hasn’t held executive responsibility”) doesn’t exactly help Clark’s preferred candidate, either. As such, more “unsmartness.” [↩]
June 30th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Heck, if the Democrats want to harp on McCain’s age, they can bring up the whole “he can’t use a computer” thing. I don’t think that his being able to use a computer matters much, but it is a harmless line of criticism at worst that won’t backfire. Unlike, say, denigrating his military service. That’s just dumb.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:26 am
From the footnote:
I’m not sure I agree with that. If Obama loses she’ll have a clear field in the 2012 primary. That was who you were talking about…Right?
June 30th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
What a stupid argument, Clark said these were attributes for Kerry at the Demo convention in 2004, military service, leadership, being shot at ect. All this is a set up to devalue McCain’s service and him as a candidate.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Clark did not criticize his war record. Saying he did is a lie. He simply pointed out that McCain has no, repeat NO, executive experience. McCain is trying to pass off his military time as executive experience and it simply is not. But let’s summarize things here. McCain is old, I would say that his failure to pick up basic computer skills shows he is too old to learn basic executive skills. Now if you want to talk about the image of the POW, that is like electing a president because he seems like a nice guy to have a beer with. We tried that haven’t we?
June 30th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
@Jim Gundlach - In case that comment was aimed at me, I wasn’t saying that Clark was criticizing McCain’s war record, but that he was questioning whether it should be considered in terms of McCain’s resume.
My point is that while it may well be irrelevant to whether McCain should be president or not, bringing it up will more likely help McCain than hurt him.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Jim seems to be a bit edgy. I think that any experience McCain has overshadows any that Obama might think he has, a community organizer, what, a do nothing state senator and a do nothing senator for the state of Illinois. This guy is a joke and if he was not black we would not be talking about him today, we would be talking about Hilliary instead. Hell, Edwards has more experience than Obama.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
To be fair, is anyone saying that being shot down is what makes McCain qualified?
Yes. Bob Schieffer did, just before Clark refuted it.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Of course Obama wants to put an end to Patriotism as an issue, because Obama is the one who’s patriotism is in question! He conveniently condems questioning patiotism, but where was he when his hatchet men came up with General Betray Us??? Also, why isn’t Iraq, or Afganistan on Obama’s upcoming itinery? Obama knows he can’t compete with McCain on the issue of patriotism, so he’s trying to make it a non issue. Obama has no experience, except to listen to God Damn America for 20 years!
June 30th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
General Clark is a disgrace for claiming that McCain has no executive experience. All military officers have executive experience. THAT IS WHAT COMMAND IS. It doesn’t surprise me that he has forgotten the definition of command; a military commander, whether a platoon leader or division commander, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THAT HIS UNIT DOES OR FAILS TO DO, and has ULTIMATE AUTHORITY over that unit. If that is not executive experience, I don’t know what is.
This avenue of attack will ultimately be fruitless - you might as well bang your head against a brick wall and expect to knock it over. There is absolutely no way for anyone on Obama’s list of friends to assault McCain’s military service and look like anything other than a whining, sniveling wimp.
It is not unexpected, however distasteful it might be, that some would attack McCain in this area. It’s one of the few things that McCain has that Obama does not. Obama just can’t put anything up against McCain’s military service; he would do well to simply write off the military/veteran vote and concentrate on other things.
As for Clark - he turned his back on soldiers during his command in Serbia, where I served under him; he is not popular with the military or veterans of the military. If he’s going to go down this route in attacking McCain, Obama would do well to distance himself from Clark. We all know that McCain, at any age, is twice the soldier that Clark ever was - at any age. I don’t know what he was like when he was younger but he was a terrible general, with his eyes on politics before he took off the uniform, and his words should always be taken with a grain of salt (or maybe a teaspoon of it).