Campaign Diaries

Ever since Wesley Clark uttered “I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president” on CBS this Sunday — and I already described the resulting brouhaha yesterday afternoon — the controversy has been increasing. The McCain campaign chose to make a major deal out of this episode, for quite obvious reasons. For one, the GOP wants the attention to be focused on McCain’s biography, which they believe will seduce undecided voters.

Second, Republicans were getting worried that Obama’s “fight the smear” website coupled with dozens of stories about nasty rumors circulating about the Illinois Senator would allow Obama to claim the victim mantle — and thus be covered more favorably by the media. Just as in the South Carolina campaign, when McCain hyped up attacks against him to counter-balance the much more legitimate and prevalent negativity aimed at Romney and Mormonism, McCain has now created a Truth Squad aimed at combatting alleged smears on the candidate’s military record.

The purpose is to show McCain has eager to take the high road and portray Obama as a practicioner of “politics as usual.” This is a point the GOP has been pressing ever since Obama did not embrace McCain’s town-hall proposal. McCain’s reaction to Clark’s comments sought to further this argument: “The important thing is if that’s the kind of campaign Senator Obama and his surrogates and supporters want to engage in, I understand that.” And the press has been eager to help him over the past 2 days. The Columbia Journalism Review exposes the long list of media sources that are distorting Clark’s comments and portrayed them as an attack on McCain’s military record. (Note that Obama made the GOP’s job easier by rejecting Clark’s comments.)

Electorally, then, the Clark episode is likely to help McCain move the discussion on a terrain he is comfortable with and the fact that it overshadowed Obama’s patriotism speech has not gone unnoticed.

But it’s worth taking a moment to put Clark’s comments in context. This is unlikely to do him much good, given that the conventional wisdom about his comments is already set, but it nonetheless seems like a necessary exercise. The fact that a McCain surrogate on this issue was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth contributes to muddying the situation. This is what Bud Day said yesterday:

“The Swift Boat ‘attacks’ were simply revelation of the truth,” said Day, a former prisoner of war and Medal of Honor recipient who served i the Air Force. “The similarity does not exist here.”

“What the Swift Boat campaign was about was to lay out John Kerry’s record. John Kerry has never produced any evidence to deny that,” he said. In contrast, he said, he and others on the call had produced “evidence pointing out that [Clark's] remarks were completely inaccurate.”

So did Clark swiftboat McCain? First, let’s start by leaving out the exact wording Clark used (we will come back to the phrasing in a minute) and focus on the argument. Clark praised McCain’s service (”I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war”) and there is no suggestion that he criticized anything McCain did in his years in Vietnam. This in itself is a crucial difference with the Swift Boat ads, which questioned events during Kerry’s service in Vietnam and argued that he had usurped his medals. Clark’s argument concerns the present relevance of past events (and is largely a matter of opinion) whereas the Swift Boat “argument” concerned the past and were repeatedly debunked.

Clark questioned the fact that McCain’s combat experience — however heroic it was — is relevant to anything he might face as president. As I noted yesterday, this is similar to questions raised about whether Clinton’s years as First Lady constituted preparation for the presidential function. We should celebrate and honor a man with a heroic military service, says Clark, but should we elect him President? Many people might answer “yes, of course, McCain’s fortitude as a POW is a clear sign that he loves this country enough and has enough moral resolve to be President.”

Disagreeing with that perspective does not degrade McCain’s service, just as arguing that 8 years as First Lady does not constitute presidential experience does not come to saying that Hillary did a dishonorable job while in the White House. Instead, it could (and did) invite a discussion about whether those years provided her with presidential training and Clark’s attacks on McCain are meant to raise the same question. This points to the fact that Clark’s fault was first and foremost political: The McCain campaign would love to debate how McCain’s years as POW would reflect on his performance as president because this is a discussion they believe they would win hands down.

Here, I grant one resemblance between Clark’s comments and the 2004 campaign: Insofar as John Kerry made Vietnam a central argumnent of his candidacy, conservatives reminding voters that Kerry had become an anti-war activist when he returned was a relevant attack — and Kerry should have expected them. He could not just delete those years of his life. But the attacks on his years as a soldier were nasty, unfounded and entirely unexpected.

Similarly, insofar as McCain himself is using footage of his years as POW in his ads and insofar as he is claiming that his military years constitute experience, it is legitimate to ask whether McCain’s experience is relevant to the job he now wants to be elected to — though questioning how heroic the service was or suggesting that McCain betrayed his country while a POW (as some Bush-backing Republican operatives smeared in the 2000 primary) would be out of line, nasty and unfounded.

As for the phrasing: Some critics of Clark are focusing on the tone he used — “getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down” — as an attempt to minimize McCain’s heroism instead of taking on the GOP nominee on the issues. But here again, it is absurd to fault Clark for his phrasing. As the CJR points out, Bob Schieffer on CBS asked Clark:

Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

Clark’s response was word-per-word parroting: “I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” While the tone does seem unduly inflammatory, it is important to remember what Clark was responding to.

Now Clark is sticking to his statement and refusing to retract:

As I have said before I honor John McCain’s service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.

John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn’t include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed (…) I will not back down if I believe someone doesn’t have sound judgment when it comes to our nation’s most critical issues.

This controversy will have an obvious impact on Clark’s vice-presidential prospects. The former general, close to the Clintons, is often mentioned as a possible pick that could bolster the ticket’s national security credentials, and his questioning McCain’s credentials was meant as a veep audition. Like every potential running-mate, Clark wanted to show that he can be a good attack dog.

But whatever the merits of Clark’s statement, does he stand much of a chance if Obama himself feels that Clark crossed the line and that he could be a liability on the campaign trail? Keep in mind that Clark did not exhibit particularly good campaigning skills in his short-lived 2004 effort, and his tendency to get himself in trouble might be too much for Obama to risk. And insofar as Obama feels that Clark did cross the line of whatever civility he wants to embrace, the former general’s refusal to back down is unlikely to help him get the vice-presidential nomination. In fact, Obama might now fear that the GOP will feel more justified in attacking Obama’s patriotism if Clark is on the ticket.