McCain's Cultural Rationale To Be President

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:30


In the comments to an earlier thread, T Maysle provides this excellent description of how Clark undercut McCain's entire cultural claim to the White House:

The cultural assumptions behind it bear scrutiny. Its the mythic hero template, the trial by fire, the Christ-like suffering and near-death for a higher cause, for America, for you and me.

When the hero survives the unimaginable trial by fire, he assumes magical warrior chief status. He has passed the test of life, the test of the god or gods, and ascended to a higher plane above ordinary mortals and TV pundits.

A lot of McCain's selling point is based on this claim of assumed status. Clark is popping his balloon.

Clark isn't attacking McCain's service, he is attacking the cultural assumptions behind McCains' rationale to be President. No wonder the McCain campaign, and indeed the entire Republican apparatus, is freaking out. Talking about hitting a nerve.
Chris Bowers :: McCain's Cultural Rationale To Be President

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
McCain's Cultural Rationale To Be President | 43 comments
Look at how they are hitting back (4.00 / 9)
Very good post. And remember, Republicans always want to argue on their turf and on their terms. They will almost always reframe a losing argument rather than getting down into the weeds.

Watch this compilation put together by TPM and see.
http://www.veracifier.com/epis...

They don't argue Clark's actual point-- that McCain isn't fit to be president--instead they bash Clark for attacking McCain's war record.

Clark said this:
 McCain = war hero, but war hero does not = Good President
Media said this:
 McCain's war record attacked.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

This is because all McCain has is his biography (4.00 / 6)
Puncture it, and he's got nothing.  He really doesn't have standout accomplishments in the Senate, except McCain-Feingold, which many people dislike.  He isn't a policy person, in fact he doesn't have coherent policies on anything.  He isn't a good speaker, or even all that well-informed or articulate.  His signature issue is war, and more of it, hardly resonating with a public that thinks the country is off on the wrong track by 85%.

This is why they all got so unhinged--this, and because it distracts from Obama's great speeches, policies that are aimed at the country's problems, and opposition to the war.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Great point n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Guts (4.00 / 4)
Fair dues to Clark for having the guts to challenge the assumptions underlying Schieffer's statement, and for not backing down even when he has been hung out to dry.

This is leadership.

This is bad politics on so many levels (4.00 / 2)
I have trouble counting.

First, the Obama campaign does not want this election to turn on experience, it wants it to turn on judgement. Debating experience is exactly what McCain wants.

Second, we are talking about the value of military service.  And so we walk right into frame number 2.

Third, the Blogsphere is acting as though this is the end of the world.  Many of their posts HAVE BEEN PERSONAL ATTACKS on Obama.  Those in blogsphere will inevitability create the impression that Obama is weak and not in charge of the party.

The McCain people are already making the argument that this shows Obama's lack of leadership.  It's an argument that may work (and I might add it may be the only argument they have).

As long as the arguement is about policy I think we can disagree all we want.  What I have seen in the last few days is that these are turning into personal attacks on Obama.

Bottom line: Obama wants this to go away.  The GOP wants this debate to continue.

I wonder if we are so self-destructive that we want to continue this debate.

 

Yes .. (4.00 / 6)
Karl Rove is every bad name you can list .. but did you not learn anything from him? .. that you attack the other guy's strength? ... that's exactly what Gen. Clark did .. Sounds like Clark learned something ... didn't he?
[ Parent ]
That is not what Karl Rove was about (4.00 / 2)
It was about making the debate on issues of you OWN choosing.  You make the election turn on YOUR issues, not your opponents.

For example, it was making sure after a debate in 2004 that Kerry clearly won that the news cycles were dominated by Mary Cheney, and not about an outright lie Bush told in the debate.  

McCain LOVES this debate.  


[ Parent ]
Good points on both sides. (0.00 / 0)
The trick is to break the link and argue that experience does not lead to good judgement.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
You are clearly not familiar with Rove's history. (4.00 / 2)
It is his SOP to go right after an opponent's main perceived strength. There was some Dem mayor or governor or something who had a great reputation for working with kids and after-school programs. Rove started a whisper campaign accusing him of being a pedophile. In 2000 he tried to make the case that McCain's POW experience had left him mentally unstable. In 2004 they went straight for Kerry's war hero status with the swift boat liars. According to your logic they would have never gone there, because war hero Kerry vs AWOL playboy Bush would be to focus on a clear Kerry strength/Bush vulnerability.

Clark has just changed the debate from "Of course McCain has the experience to be CIC" to "Does being shot down and held captive equal experience making strategic security decisions?" So, no, Clark is not exactly following Rove's play book. We already know what that is: "McCain's captivity made him nuts, and by the way, he fathered an illegitimate black child." But Rove did go directly after McCain's primary perceived strength, as he always does.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Is McCain still fighting Rove 2000? (0.00 / 0)
Maybe the McCain camp is primed for attacks like those gruesome Rove smears back in 2000. Maybe that's one of the reasons McCain campaign went all nuclear on Clark's single, not unreasonable line.

Dems can keep on pointing out reasonably that McCain never had executive experience in the military, and when McCain goes knee jerk hysterical in response like he's fighting Rove in 2000, he looks unbalanced and over the top.

Maybe McCain's fighting the 2000 war instead of the 2008 war. Dems could use that to their advantage.

[ Parent ]
"McCain LOVES this debate." (4.00 / 1)
McCain is flailing. He is sucking wind in the polls. The public favors Obama's positions on all the important issues. McCain will grab on to anything. That doesn't mean it will work.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
McCain would love it .. (4.00 / 2)
if Clark would have apologized and folded like a cheap suit .. that's what he was hoping for .. but Clark didn't fold .. so this is McCain's worst nightmare ... because it is all McCain is running on
[ Parent ]
McCain loves this debate for a reason (0.00 / 0)
He loves it because too many of us want to concede the turf.

Question his ownership of it and question the value of it and he's left flailing.

Fighting on this issue isn't a mistake, defending on this issue is.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
You k now numbers. I know story telling (4.00 / 4)
Read the power of myth. Read any book on telling a narrative story. Chris is right about why this particular story is so important to McCain's chances in Nov. Without this emotional tug and the "maverick" narrative- what is John McCain?  I also have another question- how exactly do you think one avoids the leadership issue? That's not going to happen.
[ Parent ]
Your Argument Is Just Incorrect! (4.00 / 4)
The Republicans do NOT want this to continue. They want to beat up Obama and force him to back down so that he will appear weak and they want their media allies to help. But, this is a debate that America needs to have or we'll never get anywhere. Obama clearly wants it to go away, because it detracts from his talking point of the day.

But, McCain really DOESN'T have any more experience to be President than Obama does, and there's NO way to avoid the issue as Obama seems to be trying to do.

Obama has to make the point that flying a jet has nothing to do with foreign policy. If Obama allows McCain to translate "war-hero/POW" into "experience to lead" then he simply will lose. Period.

Anytime I talk to low-information voters who get their ideas from the whisper campaign that has been attacking Obama they ALWAYS talk about how they are "concerned" by Obama's "lack of experience."

So, when Obama talks about health care and scores some points, the response is "yeah, but McCain has the experience, Obama doesn't."

The War In Iraq: "Obama wants to the bring the troops home? Good, but Obama lacks experience."

Economy: "I like Obama's ideas, but does he have the experience?"

Obama can talk until he's blue in the face, but if voters think he doesn't have the experience necessary to implement his ideas it won't matter.

That is exactly why it was so stupid for Obama to undercut Clark and duck this debate!

McCain DOESN'T have any relevant experience other than the U.S. Senate, which is exactly the same experience that Obama has. Now can we forget about McCain the war-hero 35 years ago and talk about judgment?

The more that this issue comes up the better for Obama because he HAS to attack McCain's central premise -- that being a jet pilot not only makes him better qualified to be President, Obama's failure to serve in the military makes him UNQUALIFIED to be commander in chief "in these dangerous times."

[ Parent ]
Absolutely. (0.00 / 0)
This post is absolutely right.  This is a very delicate issue.  Dems can't attack the same way that the Right can--we have to be more subtle and avoid handing the Right distractions like this.  It isn't about whether Clark was right in some abstract sense, but whether he handled the issue deftly enough, and he didn't, by getting on the terrain of "qualifications" and "experience", rather than judgment and what is the policy going forward.  It isn;t fair, but we have to understand the lpolitical/media landscape.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
I disagree. (4.00 / 1)
Clark has planted the seed of a change of narrative from "Barack=inexperience; McCain=experience" to "Neither has relevant security experience; Barack has shown superior judgement."

Now if the rest of the party would simply get their shit together and help water that seed, it will grow and take root.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
We can attack like that (0.00 / 0)
We can't use their casual disregard for the truth, but there is no reason we can't be direct.

If we parse, we effectively concede the ground. We have to do EXACTLY what the right does - reframe until we can win the argument - and we have to do it relentlessly. Everything else is politics as usual, and that involves us losing. The media landscape will remain unfair if we don't challenge it like this.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Tom Wolf (4.00 / 5)
Chronicled much the same myth in "The Right Stuff", talking about fighter pilots becoming America's first astronauts. These archetypes are the myth of the "single-combat-warrior" which we see throughout western history, and which forms the basis of most of our action movies. Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger for example.

Senator John Kerry tried to assume this mantle of a popular war hero who had shed blood for his country at the 2004 National Democratic Convention. Even though Kerry was (and is) an actual war hero, his service was mocked by republican delegates to the 2004 RNC convention wearing tiny blue bandaids and was all but destroyed by the despicable Swift Boater attacks.

General Clark did not mock Senator McCain's war record, but accurately pointed out that the myth of the single combat warrior does not make a candidate automatically qualified to be president. This bit of truth totally demolishes most of McCain's claim of experience.


But who heard that but us? (0.00 / 0)


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
That will depend (4.00 / 2)
on whether that message is reinforced as a coordinated Dem talking point (Last night Olbermann and his guests and even Dan Abrams were already catching on to the logic of it.) or whether McCain's whining sends Dems scurrying in every direction like frightened rabbits.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
If it was repeated enough (0.00 / 0)
By Obama surrogates (not the candidate) people will hear it.

By the way did you hear that Obama is a Muslim and was born in Africa? That rumor was started several months ago and will be incessanlty repaeated, enough so that a measurable percentage of voters will believe it.

[ Parent ]
The Whole Hero Thingie (4.00 / 2)
This is such a nexus.  On the one hand, it connects with Glenn Greenwald's book about how the right is always constructing hero-images and demonizing Dems.  It also connects with the role of hero-worship in rightwing politics more generally, and in particular with the equation of the hero with the people as a whole, and the belief in heroic perfection (think the neo-Confederate deification of Robert E. Lee, for example).

Furthermore it connects with the belief in betrayal-from-within as the only possible explanation for defeat, which in turn has a long history in American (as well as German) politics, as traced briliantly by Kevin Baker two years ago in Harpers magazine ("Stabbed in the back! The past and future of a right-wing myth").

By questioning McCain's divinity now, Clark is--according to the rightwing logic of this myth--re-enacting all the DFH actions that made us lose the Vietnam War in the first place--actions that Obama himself just said, in his speech on patriotism, "remain[s] a national shame to this day."

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

The Mythical Hero Thingie (4.00 / 3)
goes far deeper if you take a Jungian perspective.

Ultimately, each human being IS the mythical hero within their own psyche and they, quite naturally, project that archetype on the "celebrities" in their particular culture.

It ain't only the right wing conservatives that practice hero worship. That's why comments such as those made by Obama that appear to disparage the anti-war protesters of the 1960's and 70s hit a nerve on the left.  He's challenging some sacred cows.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
this is a false equation. (4.00 / 1)
By questioning McCain's divinity now, Clark is--according to the rightwing logic of this myth--re-enacting all the DFH actions that made us lose the Vietnam War in the first place--actions that Obama himself just said, in his speech on patriotism, "remain[s] a national shame to this day."

obama was talking about actions that "disrespected" the troops -- basically, he was invoking the myth (and/or reality) of protesters spitting on returning troops.  he wasn't presenting these actions as actions that "made us lose the Vietnam war."  This is an equation that the right-wing makes, but there is no reason why we should naturalize it.  what obama is doing here is isolating distinct actions -- MoveOn's Betrayus ad, spitting on the troops -- and saying, those actions are wrong, whereas the motivation for those actions -- namely, protesting an unjust war -- was right, even patriotic.  thus, the "form" is rejected even as the "content" is affirmed.  

in general, i read Obama's "patriotism" speech as a speech that was designed to "sublate" the eternally repeated opposition between an imaginary left and right that we have inherited from the 1960s (if not before) -- an opposition that has helped the right up until this day.  because this mythical story still has some legs, obama needed to figure out a way to pivot away from the frame itself, since the other option -- affirming or occupying the position of the "left" in the debate -- is untenable (in large part because, as you point out, this position consists of a mythical, negative portrayal of the left).  so what obama did in the speech was fill this position of the left with relatively trivial placeholders -- a single ad, a tactic of resistance that no one employs -- so that he could distance himself from this imaginary position while nevertheless affirming the value of protest (something that, incidentally, actually DID push the US to withdraw from Vietnam...).      

[ Parent ]
He did, and it was a great speech (0.00 / 0)
But no one paid attention because the Right got everyone on both sides all up in arms about Clark and McCain.  They practice the politics of distration very, very well.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
"the politics of distraction" (4.00 / 1)
Yeah, that's what they do. And they don't need any excuses to do it. If Dems don't give them any ammo, they just make shit up (see Swiftboat Veteran's for Truth.)

They set up this bullshit narrative where a crackpot neocon jackass such as Mr. "Bomb Bomb Bomb..." has unquestionable security and foreign policy experience because he was held captive 40 years ago. Democrats, like always, seem content to accept this crazy bullshit rather than challenge it. Clark questioned the narrative in an entirely logical way, and the right is going ape shit about it. Clark is teaching Dems a valuable lesson (if they have the capability of learning it) about offense vs defense, being pro-active vs being passive, the Dean way vs the Kerry way.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Whatever The Rationale For Smearing Us, I'm NOT Impressed (4.00 / 3)
And, in fact, I'm working on a series of diaries about it for the weekend.

But here's a quick little bottom line observation: If Obama really were the transformational figure he plays on tv, he'd confront these lies head-on, rather than reinforcing them "only around the edges."

We really don't need a "Reagan of the Left," particularly since it's an oxymoron of gargantuan proportions.  And besides, Reagan never badmouthed his supporters, not even the wildest of wild-eyed racists.

Heck, he looked for ways to give them jobs.  

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
This doesn't address my points. (0.00 / 0)
 I'm making an argument about how Obama is a dialectical thinker, and how he is making arguments that dismantle right-wing narratives and restructure the terrain of rhetorical/political struggle.  I don't see how you are responding to this argument with your bottom line observation:

But here's a quick little bottom line observation: If Obama really were the transformational figure he plays on tv, he'd confront these lies head-on, rather than reinforcing them "only around the edges."

Are you saying that Obama should explicitly argue that no one spat on soldiers returning from Vietnam?  Because that would be an odd strategy, not to mention the fact that it is basically an impossible argument to win (how do you disprove it?)  Or, what about Betrayus?  It happened -- he isn't propagating lies in distancing himself from the ad?  Other than these two examples, I'm not sure what we are talking about.  

Do you really think it makes sense for progressives to take a stand on the issue of spitting on soldiers?  (Just to be clear, when I say that, I mean: do you really think it makes sense for progressives to take up space arguing that it never happened?).  Because I don't.  I say: cut that bit loose.  Whether it happened or not, it "happened."  It is in the cultural imaginary, and tons of people have constructed memories that support the notion that protesters spat on troops.  So arguing about this issue doesn't take us anywhere.  It just gets us bogged down in an image that the right would love for people to wallow in.  It is a fundamentally losing battle.  So, here is my counterpoint bottom line observation: The right wins when we re-fight the battles of the sixties, using the images and subject positions of the sixties (i.e. DFHs versus The Establishment, or Nixon, or The War, or whatever).  We need a new terrain of rhetorical/political struggle.  Despite his many imperfections, Obama is doing a lot to stake that terrain out.      

I have yet to see an argument from people who were upset with Obama's speech on patriotism that addresses this basic point.  I have yet to hear someone make a convincing argument that we should resuscitate images from the 1960s in order to build a new progressive majority. That, in my view, is the task of those who would argue, in the manner that you are, against Obama's rhetorical moves.    

I didn't say anything about Reagan in my comment.  I don't feel the need to defend the notion that "we need a left wing Reagan."  If you think this was what I was arguing for in my post, then you misread it.        

Finally, in response to your most recent post:  I don't think it makes sense to frame the argument in psychological terms, as "frames that Obama has internalized."  Instead, it makes sense in my view to talk about culturally dominant images and frames.  As I see it, Obama does work with these images and frames, rather than being dominated by them.  He uses them strategically.  Throw a dismissal of "love ins" into an argument about how we should withdraw from Iraq, and you automatically seem so much more reasonable to a whole lot of people.  Since no one holds love-ins to protest the Iraq war, you are basically giving nothing away to the right.  You are distancing yourself from a mythical, negative, figure.  This is what Obama was doing w/rt the "spitting on troops" image.  

The only example that doesn't fit with this analysis is the Betrayus example.  But, in my view, that ad was strategically bone-headed and counterproductive, so implying that people shouldn't argue in that manner in the future is just good (progressive) politics.      

[ Parent ]
Why Shouldn't Obama Argue The Spitting Point? (0.00 / 0)
It's a throwaway line, but even so, the evidence for it is non-existent. Let the rightwing get in a huff about it, and demand they produce some evidence. Make them try to sustain their old lies, rather than spend the time making new ones.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Counter-culture days (4.00 / 2)
Paul, I honor and respect your counter-culture days in the 60's, but I think you get a wee bit sensitive about any criticism related to those days.  And though I honor and respect your protesting, I don't see why it isn't reasonable to separate that which was good and that which was not from those protests.  While honoring and respecting your part in bring an end to one of the worst disasters in American history, clearly you must realize that flawed humans were involved on every side, that we can and do learn from our mistakes, even if the mistakes were small compared to the greatness of the accomplishments.
[ Parent ]
Mark, I Honor And Respect Your Ability To Make Me LMFAO (4.00 / 3)
But what bothers me, is the things people remember about the 60s that just weren't so.

Spitting on vets, for example.  Could it have happened?  Sure, it's a big country, all sorts of things could happen.  But do we have any evidnce it happened?  Well, Jerry Lembcke found no credible evidence for a single instance as of writing his book, The Spitting Image 10 years ago.  Since then, one contemporaneous news report has emerged, but that was hearsay, and obiter dicta for a personal portrait piece.

But the argument is much bigger than this.  The argument is that this was characteristic, and this is simply a lie. In fact, what was characteristic was the exact opposite.  The anti-war protesters (above all) and the hippies (more generally, if irregularly) were by and large the most supportive of the returning troops, because they didn't have John Wayne expectations for them to live up to.  Hitch-hiking across the country, for example, in 1968-1970, almost every ride I got in rural states was from Vietnam vets hungry to spill their guts to someone who would just listen to them.  "No one wants to hear this," was their most common refrain.

In fact, as the anti-war veterans became fixtures in the vanguard of every anti-war march, it was Richard Nixon who was the most overtly hostile to them.

So, like I said, more this weekend.

But, keeping cracking wise.  I honor and respect your talent for it.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
The only documented cases (0.00 / 0)
of people spitting on troops returning from Vietnam occurred on the right.

You can read about it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Spitting...

Conservative WWII veterans from the American Legion spit on Vietnam vets for "losing."

Rightwing projection has a far longer history than most people appreciate, they ALWAYS accuse us of the very things they are doing or have done.

Obama ought to know this.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
That;'s True Paul (4.00 / 2)
And I for one, who opposed the war in Vietnam did not take kindly to those comments perpetuating the "Dolchstoßlegende" ("Stab-in-the-back legend") that was made famous by Hitler.

But, Obama clearly is right when he argues that we cannot win the cultural wars of the 1960s now. That ship sailed long ago and we as a people refused to learn the lessons of Vietnam, or rather allowed the media and elites to "unlearn" them for us -- (although Noam Chomsky makes some interesting points about how much has really changed since the 1960s when he says that Iraq was the first time that a war of aggression was protested by millions of people BEFORE it happened).

What Obama is trying to do is take us past that history and look to the future. He has a chance to make the point that Bush's policy failures and not the actions of anti-war critics are the real lessons for the future.

Frankly, the "Dolchstoßlegende" debate is unavoidable. We will need to fight that war during the Obama administration, because the right-wing is totally going to attack once Obama starts trying to bring the troops home.

But, we don't need to do more in this election cycle than point out that McCain's "war-hero" status doesn't mean he's more "experienced."

That's all Clark is trying to do and that is enough of a load for any one campaign. Obama desperately needs to support Clark and not try and distance himself from him.  

[ Parent ]
He did (0.00 / 0)
And he was exactly right in saying that this isn't the main issue that the American people are worried about.  But too much of his message got lost in the controversy.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Obama's Problem Is He Don't Know (4.00 / 3)
Shit Faulkner:

"The past isn't dead.  It isn't even past."

This isn't some old battle from the 1960s.  That completely mislocates it in time.  And it's not going to go away now with just a little fancy footwork.  Obama is genuinely clueless about the nature of the mythmaking machine that he's up against.  And someone that clueless genuinely worries me more than I care to think about.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Ok -- "clueless" -- that is quite a claim... (0.00 / 0)
maybe you care to back it up?  

Also, the Faulkner quote can be used to support my point -- the past isn't past, yet.    

[ Parent ]
This Weekend, All Will Be Revealed! (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I'll get to that in my diary series this weekend.  But it can't adequately be argued in the back-and-forth of a comment thread.

There will also be a Bugs Bunny cartoon and a Three Stooges short.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
The fight happens every generation (0.00 / 0)
If the right hadn't rehabilitated McCarthy, they'd never have got away with the crap they've pulled over the past fifteen years. If we rehabilitate the DFHs of the 1960s we a) exonerate the clearly innocent and b) give ourselves a platform to argue against American exceptionalism and imperialism.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Stab in the back (0.00 / 0)
One thing to consider with respect to the "Stab in the back" narrative. It's most famous example is the rise of the Nazi party after WWI, which lived-and-breathed the "Stab in the back" narrative. But consider what happened in Germany after WWII. Germany was defeated just as badly, if not more so, after the second world war. Yet did a "Stab in the back" narrative ever re-appear in Germany after Hitler was expunged?

Not that I know of.

The lesson: "Stab in the back" can work as a narrative after one national experience of defeat. But that does not mean it will work after a second one. Perhaps, after losing twice, the Germans were more open to self-examination on this question instead of looking for someone to blame.

Similary, after Vietnam, there has been a persistant debate in this country over whether we would have won if the "Dirty Fucking Hippies" hadn't undermined the war effort at home. This debate arguably sank Kerry's presidential campaign.

But will the same thing happen after a "defeat" in Iraq? Or will Americans be more open to the argument that maybe both Vietnam and Iraq were failures BECAUSE of something America did wrong.

It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

[ Parent ]
I think this fight is going pretty well (4.00 / 4)
I  haven't been watching any TV outside of web-delivered segments, so don't have a very good sense of the coverage.  That being said, my sense is that this fight is going pretty well, largely to the credit of Wes Clark, with Obama also playing his part increasingly well.  

The following suggests to me that McCain sees the potentially lethal (politically, that is) nature of the threat to his mythology (and his only "selling" point), and is trying to rally his media posse around a strategy that strikes me as a desperate move likely to fail:

ABC News' Bret Hovell Reports: John McCain, taking questions from reporters aboard his Straight Talk Express: The Airplane Edition, said it was time for the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama to cut retired Gen. Wesley Clark loose. "I think it's up to Sen. Obama now to not only repudiate him, but to cut him loose," McCain said to a small group of reporters somewhere between Indianapolis, IN, and Cartagena, Colombia.

This dkos diary includes two video clips of Obama responding yesterday to questions about Clark's comments.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

I think this is a good strategy for him. Let Clark (and now also Webb) hammer in on these issues, and let Obama stay a bit above the fray, but able to connect what he's saying to the key "judgment" argument being made by Clark, and making it clear that he's not throwing Clark under the bus, but only acknowledging that he made some "inartful" statements, which is a term Obama has used at several times to describe some of his own statements.

I thought Clark's interview on GMA yesterday morning was real good.  After citing his own 38 years in uniform spanning the bottom to the top of the officer ranks (and going home from Vietnam on a stretcher), he reiterated his respect for McCain's early heroism and suffering, then spent the last part of the segment making the point that the key characteristic we need in a POTUS is (regarding national security and other issues) is "judgment," which is the same point Obama tries repeatedly to make.  

Here's Clark's final statement in the GMA interview (bolding is mine):

I served 38 years in uniform. I'm proud of my service, and I was asked to give my opinion about professional qualifications based on my experience. And I've served at both levels. I was a junior officer. I did come back from Vietnam on a stretcher. And I served as a commander at the highest levels. I worked with heads of state, heads of government and with heads of armed forces in the Balkans and in the Kosova campaign. So, I have some appreciation for both levels of command and the qualities it takes at the top, and I simply say it's a matter of judgment. Experience? Yes, it's important. It shows character and, and courage, but on the other hand there are other ways to show character and courage than by having been in the Armed Forces. So, I think what the American people really want in a President is a man with good judgment, or a woman with good judgment.

In an interview with Dan Abrams the previous day, Clark ended the interview with:

Well Dan, I'm not backing away from anything I said. I think there's a very important issue here that this is an election that's going to be about change in America but one of the critical aspects will be, who can best protect America?.. So if all of this brouhaha helps focus the issue past the fact that one served in the military and one didn't and into the relevant qualities of judgment of the two respective candidates, then...then I'll be satisfied that it accomplished something. If it was just a brouhaha in the press and swiftboating uh, and an effort to steal the headlines back for John McCain, then uh, shame on all of us for getting wrapped up in it.

It appears McCain is also going after Jim Webb, who is also shining an unflattering light on the McCain myth and who just spearheaded an important bill to REALLY "support the troops," a bill opposed by both McCain and Bush.  http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...
http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...

Its great to have both Clark and Webb as "fighting Dems" on this issue.  It'll be tough for McCain's swiftboaters and media devotees to take on both Clark and Webb on this. They're both smart, genuine, tough and well-spoken, and have a massive amount of military and national security credibility between them.  I can't think of two other national political figures that I'd prefer to have covering my flank on national security issues in a fight with McCain if I was Obama.  And, so far, it looks like all three are finding their way through this intriguing and potentially important phase of the political battle pretty well.  

If portions of the MSM begin emerging from their McCain-hero-worship stupor (even just a little), we'll be well on our way to putting this race in the bag.  The last thing McCain wants is the MSM to actually digest what Clark is saying and begin thinking (and reporting) about it, instead of simply reacting emotionally to it.  If they do, he's toast, which is probably why he wants Obama to "cut Clark loose".  Right now, Clark (and Webb) is a mortal threat to McCain's only political strength.  If he can discredit Clark, he discredits the issue that is his own Achilles heel.  But now he's got Webb to also contend with, while Obama has positioned himself and the issue in a way that protects him but doesn't weaken Clark.  And there's also groups like VotVets standing firm with Clark.  

I hope they continue the emerging three-pronged pincer movement (Clark-Webb-Obama), adjusting the pressure, language and nuance as needed.  Then we need only to wait for the moment when the dark side of McCain's temperament flairs up and he starts shooting himself in the foot with high caliber ammo.  Once that happens, we should see some very nice waves of blue on Chris's electoral vote map.


This Is Particularly Crucial: (4.00 / 3)
If portions of the MSM begin emerging from their McCain-hero-worship stupor (even just a little), we'll be well on our way to putting this race in the bag.  The last thing McCain wants is the MSM to actually digest what Clark is saying and begin thinking (and reporting) about it, instead of simply reacting emotionally to it.

If that ever happens, it's game, set, match, as they say in the trade.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
If Obama just sticks with issues as FlaDem describes above (0.00 / 0)
he will lose. Emotional appeal of both what he says and what McCain is doing must be a part of the mix. You can't get to the issues unless you first understand and navigate the emotional terrain.
[ Parent ]
McCain's Cultural Rationale To Be President | 43 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox