 |
 |
By Kirk Shelley
Gen Wesley Clark attacked Sen. McCain this weekend by going after McCain’s strongest point, his status as a genuine war hero.
Gen. Clark’s point was that just because someone suffered torture and was heroic does not equal personal militarily or strategic brilliance. Keep in mind Gen. Clark was Valedictorian of his class at West Point, while McCain was 4th from the bottom in his class at Annapolis. Clark plays by the rules and is straight laced, McCain’s military career was marked by his casual disregard for the rules and reputation as a party goer.
Gen. Clark has worked at the highest levels of the military hierarchy, was an advisor to President Clinton, and is a thought leader in modern warfare and military strategy. When he ran for President, he won the Oklahoma Primary. So Gen. Clark is a very high achiever who has real credibility on military and political matters – a rarity on the Democratic side of the aisle.
Technically his criticism against McCain is correct. Surviving being shot down and brutal treatment by the Viet Cong is not enough to qualify someone to be Commander and Chief.
Here’s where Gen. Clark missed the political realities – we are not electing a General of the Armed Forces and the American public knows it. If we were selecting the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s we’d care about their class rank and making sure the candidate did more militarily than calling out the Arkansas National Guard .
Are Clark’s gripes with McCain strictly personal? Why is an Army General supporting the Democrats anyway? In a nutshell Gen. Clark’s disagreement with the GOP comes from President Bush’s belief that American interests are best served by the use of force and power, not ideological persuasion.
Presidents Reagan and Clinton tried to advance American interests by using persuasion and holding out American ideals, using the military strategically to try and influence those goals while avoiding direct confrontation. Presidents Nixon and the Bush’s use the military to inflict the US will on other nations.
McCain holds more to Bush’s view of how to use the US Military and Clark doesn’t.
So Clark has an ideological difference with McCain as well as a personal history that contrasts with McCain’s own background. It is not really surprising that Gen. Clark would sound so dismissive of McCain’s ability to lead the military.
Why did the attack fall flat? Because it didn’t square with the perceived reality of most people. It takes a whole bunch of background to explain the remark. It just doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker and it doesn’t resonate with people. It’s the type of attack that just backfires and builds support and enthusiasm of McCain’s base.
Just a reminder, it is possible to be correct, but ineffective.
If you are going to go after someone, think it through and see if the attack is believable. If Clark had stuck to concerns about McCain’s temperament he might have scored some points and created doubt in McCain supporters mind that possibly Sen. McCain could be too easily provoked to anger to be Commander in Chief. Instead Clark tried to be technically correct and score some debate points, but lost the core of his audience support.
Leave a comment