How is it that this (isolated snippet of a more nuanced) statement
I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
is somehow regarded as a low, vicious and uncalled for attack, but this:
is somehow necessary and relevant in determining who should be the next President of the United States? I understand why the Obama campaign felt the need to stage this event in all its star-spangled glory...although there is part of me that wonders if it is ever worth it to enter this fray. This story in today's WaPo actually sums things up quite nicely: In certain sectors of the electorate, voters cling to the idea that "Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance." So maybe the answer to that is to travel to Independence, sport a "clearly visible American flag pin on his lapel" (thanks for keeping us up to date on that important question, NYT!) and deliver a Major Speech on Why I Love America. The campaign has to know, however, that the wingnuts who believe the bizarre rumors aren't really interested in a well-crafted, reasonable treatise on these "issues."
I am less clear as to why Wes Clark's question about how being a POW counts as a qualification for President is out of bounds -- even to the Obama campaign, which has been on the receiving end of so many actually vicious, actually untrue and unfair attacks on his patriotism. More importantly, I am now left wondering: What exactly are the relevant skill sets one obtains from this experience?
I'm having a hard time finding anything in Clark's remarks that were anything less than respectful of McCain's military service and that could reasonably be characterized as "swiftboating." Seems like a perfectly valid question to me. Not that facts or logical reasoning ever have anything to do with anything in these debates.
Guess it's safe to say that the General is off the short list for Obama's VP. But speaking of veeps, this gives me an idea: If there's anything to this prisoner of war = presidential logic, maybe McCain should take his search for a running mate to Guantanamo. I hear those guys have been through some shit. And, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, they might soon be looking for new opportunities. Just a thought...
No go on the Gitmo running mate - they're not "prisoners of war," they're "enemy combatants." Totally different things, really.
ReplyDeleteoh, riiiight...yet another thing us blame america first-ers don't understand.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that the equivalent of Swift Boating in this case would involve digging up some Vietnam ERA P.O.W.'s and having them talk about how they cracked, how John McCain cracked, how everyone cracks under those kinds of conditions, and how in the 30 years since they came home they've struggled daily with PTSD, as -- surely -- John McCain must also.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that Clark's comments are the first salvo in an attack like that, though I doubt it. It would be a classic Rovian pivot, turning the opponent's strength into a weakness.
Exactly, dr. There are a hell of a lot of "ifs" in this Obama (via surrogate Clark) is swift boating McCain dust-up. I just don't see it.
ReplyDeleteBTW, thought of you when I read the "Bellman" reference in the federal appeals court decision on Huzaifa Parhat...
BTW, thought of you when I read the "Bellman" reference in the federal appeals court decision on Huzaifa Parhat...
ReplyDeleteNow I'm going to have to go find the reference.
Sorry, don't know why I didn't just include a link in the first place.
ReplyDelete