McCain's actions prove General Clark right.
The events which unfolded following General Wesley Clark's appearance on Face the Nation this Sunday, have exonerated the General and proved conclusively that he was correct. The General praised John McCain's heroism and patriotism and then argued that his military experiences were insufficient in themselves to provide the judgment necessary to lead the free world.
The McCain campaign pounced and denounced Clark. The media hyperventilated calling it a "Swift Boat" smear. MoveON.org and Vote Vets defended Clark. McCain and his surrogates throughout the traditional media belittled and berated them. Others, notably Jim Webb, suggested that McCain should calm down, that the politicization of the military should be reduced. The McCain campaign, again supported by media surrogates, decided that their best bet was to put on the tin-foil hat, proclaim the whole thing a coordinated attack and play the victim. You almost expected his campaign surrogates to break into tears.
But then a funny thing happened. Obama stepped up and restated his devotion to American patriotism in general and to McCain's personal sacrifice. Wes Clark didn't back down, MoveON.org and Vote Vets stood up with Clark, and Webb restated that no one had ever questioned McCain's patriotism.
It was also revealed that in 2003 John McCain used Clark's precise argument - military experience in itself is not sufficient qualification for the presidency, and in 2006 he campaigned against double amputee, Iraq vet, netroots hero Tammy Duckworth.
The critical thing throughout this pitiful episode of McCain weakness is that it wholeheartedly proves Wesley Clark completely correct in every way. John McCain does not have the judgment necessary to lead the free world. That his squadron command, pilot experience, captivity, and legislative career have not crafted an individual with the judgment to handle difficult situations is incidental. The point is that McCain simply lacks that judgment.
John McCain's squadron command did not give him the judgment to oppose the Iraq War.
John McCain's piloting skills did not give him the judgment to support a woman's right to choose even in the most extreme circumstances.
John McCain's imprisonment and torture did not give him the judgment to support habeus corpus or oppose torture.
John McCain's legislative experience did not provide him with the economic insight to sustain his opposition to Bush's weak-dollar policies of endless debt and tax cuts for aristocrats.
John McCain's much-vaunted foreign policy experiences did not provide him with the judgement to distinguish between Sunni and Shia, between Sudan and Somalia, between al Qaeda and Iranian Extremists, or between Purim and Halloween for that matter.
John McCain's campaign experience did not give him the judgment on how to deal with this or really any other critical campaign challenge with either grace or grit.
Since his early days in political life, John McCain has used his status as a POW as a perennial fig-leaf against criticism. He references his POW experience as an introduction, and as cover against any and all criticism. The reason for this is that in many cases his positions are indefensible, the issue of torture for example, but under McCain's rules, to question McCain is to question McCain's patriotism.
These rules are now peeled away. Questioning John McCain's judgment is now simply questioning John McCain's judgment.
The decision tree for Democrats during the beginning of the primary season started with Hillary Clinton and went from there. Those who were not 100% onboard, went on to consider other options, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Barack Obama and so on. For many progressives our sights were set early on John Edwards who was saying all the right things, but who was torpedoed by a vicious press and a $400 haircut. For me, my decision to support Barack Obama was based on my perception of his clear-sighted judgment. Edwards was bringing the critical progressive issues into the discourse, but it was Obama, I reasoned, who would take the steps necessary to win the election and govern to effect real progressive change. In essence, I trusted, and still trust, his judgment above my own rhetoric.
Contrast this to John McCain's intemperance. His incendiary, weak-kneed, willingness to project himself as a victim, his persistent need for emotional reinforcement and obeisance to his infallibility, is for me conclusive proof that he lacks the judgment and leadership abilities necessary to lead the free world.
The next president will face a world of problems: a faltering economy, a worldwide energy crisis, a potentially apocalyptic climate crisis, rising economic, educational, labor, and trade challenges from the world economy, a faltering healtcare system. In short, the next president will sometimes need to face challenges of a complexity unseen in our history. This week John McCain proved himself incapable, weak, and sadly unprepared for the job.
So, to repeat Wes Clark's point: "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" is not "a qualification to be president." It isn't and John McCain's actions conclusively prove Wes Clark 100% correct.
[UPDATE: Tammy Duckworth reference as requested in comments.
McCain himself has downplayed the role that military backgrounds play in election seasons. In February 2003, the Arizona Republican said "Absolutely not," when asked whether "military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief."[...]
But a more telling example may have come more recently, when McCain found himself campaigning against one of the few Iraq War veterans who was running for office. In 2006, the Senator appeared at a late-stage but crucial fundraiser for Illinois Rep. Pete Roskam, who was being challenged by Democrat Tammy Duckworth, a veteran who had lost both her legs in Iraq. The nail-biter campaign for the open seat, which was won by Roskam with 51 percent of the vote, was marked by heated rhetoric over service and war. Roskam, who won the endorsement of the organization Veterans of Foreign Wars, accused Duckworth of wanting to cut-and-run from Iraq. McCain held his fundraiser shortly thereafter.
Your point on temperament is a strong one, but I posit that the less McCain's war record is used as one-size-fits-all armor against criticism, the more that criticism will take extensive toll on his fake calm.
Basically, somebody's going to ask him the right question and McCain's going to blow his stack. Incidentally, I think that someone is going to be Jim Webb.
I think you're right. McCain's childish and over-the-top reaction to Wes Clark is beginning to backfire in a big way. I especially liked Senator Webb's, McCain should "calm down" remark (with its undertones of, "now, now, Grampa, remember what the doctor said about getting overly excited").
If we could only get the dumbest among us (T.V. commentators) to understand what Wes Clark was saying, we could all move on to a necessary discussion of McCain's qualifications, or lack thereof.
Answer: by being the son of an admiral.
We've just seen what eight years of "leadership" by a spoiled, well-connected child of privilege can do to a country and the world. And remember that George W. Bush managed to slide through Yale and then Harvard Business School with gentleman's "C's." Bush's overall GPA was even a point higher than John Kerry's at Yale.
Bush and McCain both are spoiled children of privilege, but Bush is arguably the much brighter of the two. At least Bush wasn't a bottom one-percenter like McCain.
If getting shot down in a plane arguably does not qualify someone to be President, how does the intellectual capacity reflected by ranking in the bottom one percent of a graduating class demonstrate the ability to weigh often ambiguous data and and often conflicting advice to make sound Presidential decisions?
At a recent dinner party I spoke with someone who was a personal acquiantance of a State Department official who had worked with McCain on WMD issues. The bottom line via that official: on this important substantive issue McCain was dumb as a stump. Yup, I know that this small anecdote is third-hand hearsay that would not hold up in court, but for me it is a scrap of data which confirms the public record and helps explain McCain's stumbling, bumbling performances on the campaign trail.
As a hiring manager it is not enough that a prospective employee was in the military, though that does imply a certain level of professionalism can be expected... Though someone who was in the military developing expertise in the field for which I am hiring is great to get; most of the time their experience is an indirect transfer of skills.
I was hiring computer systems administrators; so it was a rare fighter pilot or infantry soldier who qualified for the job; but military trained systems programmers were the top choice for our open jobs.
Clark is completely right. McCain's military experience is not an example of why he should be considered president; though his patriotism does count for something. Sadly, McCain's blatant anti-patriotism in the nearly 30 years he has been in politics is proof that he cannot be allowed anywhere near the oval office.
Integrity anyone?
In 2006, the Senator appeared at a late-stage but crucial fundraiser for Illinois Rep. Pete Roskam, who was being challenged by Democrat Tammy Duckworth, a veteran who had lost both her legs in Iraq. The nail-biter campaign for the open seat, which was won by Roskam with 51 percent of the vote, was marked by heated rhetoric over service and war. Roskam, who won the endorsement of the organization Veterans of Foreign Wars, accused Duckworth of wanting to cut-and-run from Iraq. McCain held his fundraiser shortly thereafter.
So what did McCain say exactly?
If he hadn't been the son of an admiral, it's doubtful he'd have been allowed to fly after the first 2.
Ultimately, this really isn't the point, isn't useful and is very very dangerous in political terms.
The reality is that McCain's experiences failed to inform his judgment.
I wouldn't under any circumstances claim that being a POW is somehow indicative of some sort of military failings. That's not constructive.