Yeah, yeah, I know, we've all heard about Gen. Clark's statements and Obama's rejection (reject and denounce?). The criticism has been generally:
- Clark shouldn't go there at a minimum, or he's a swiftboater at the maximum; or
- Obama threw him under the bus.
To me, I actually don't think either Obama or Clark are wrong in what they did. The only fault I can find is with the media. I'll explain after the jump.
This issue reminds me exactly of the issue that happened when some TN GOPers (and unfortunately, one or two Dems) started attacking Michelle Obama. Forgetting the stupidity of the content of the attacks, we basically had two thoughts on this:
- Obama saying not to attack his family; or
- You put her out there, she's fair game for criticism. You don't like it, leave her at home.
In our political world, should those put forward to argue for one issue or candidate face criticism or rebuttal? Within limits, yes (And yes, the TN GOP exceeded those limits). Do I wish we lived in a political world where someone's wife or daughter could make speeches supporting their family's candidacy without being brutalized b/c the other side decided to play it clean? Also yes. The same really applies here.
Clark's criticisms came not in the Swiftboat manner in which they attacked Kerry's honor, service, integrity, and honesty, but rather can be summarized as, "McCain says his service experience is an asset, but if you look at it, while admirable, it doesn't directly apply to national security issues." Makes sense. What if McCain had come out of Vietnam and wanted to be an architect, did his POW experience directly apply? No. Did it make his service any less honorable? Certainly no. Clark has a point in that nothing in training/being a fighter pilot qualifies you for anything other than being a fighter pilot. It is a different set of skills, shown by the fact that it would be ludicrous to say that anyone who had been a POW would be especially qualified to be candidate for President.
Contrast that to Obama, who does not want to bring up McCain's military experience in the same sentence with criticism. Is he being politically expedient, or does he simply have too bad a taste in his mouth from what the GOP did to Kerry? I don't know, but I don't have any problem with him essentially saying, "I can get to where I need to be by criticizing his actions in the Senate, and am not going to bring up his service other than to thank and congratulate him."
So I don't really have a problem with either Clark or Obama, just two different schools of thought on fighting McCain. Like the title says, however, you can see the media drooling over the chance to bring back swiftboats and boomers who love nothing better than to shred each other over Vietnam. The media can get the catfights they love and show the GOP they're not lackeys for the left by saying that the Dems swiftboated too, etc., etc. We don't even have to see it to know how it is going to play out.
My only question to the media is this: Why can't you differentiate between what Clark said and what SBVT said, and where was your criticism when it was done against Kerry?