The entire Clark blow-up is silly and stupid, but so is our discourse. That said, I do blame Clark, though not for attacking McCain, something he didn’t do. I blame him for bad message control.
He threw out a pithy line about McCain which is fine enough, but the problem is it brought us to McCain’s one strength–people’s perception of his defense background. As an academic point, Clark is right–then again so was Michael Dukakis when he talked about Belgian Endive.
The Netroots is up in arms because the argument is that Obama is capitulating on the issue. That’s entirely wrong. Of course Obama wants to get off of McCain’s war record, it’s McCain’s only strength. In fact, if this election is about McCain’s war record, he might win–though the electoral wave suggests that might not even save him and the rest of the GOP.
On every issue other than McCain’s personal background as a pilot and war prisoner and terrorism, Obama wins. Clark didn’t belittle McCain’s service, he made a fairly decent point, but that point was completely off message. Get off of McCain’s history in the Navy and talk about anything else about McCain, but especially his judgment.
The left blogosphere is up in arms that Obama isn’t tough. This has nothing to do with toughness. Standing and yelling at the top of your lungs on any issue isn’t smart. It’s as if you were to attack your opponent in battle at his strongest point. You don’t do that–you attack their weak spots to undermine their strenghth and anyone paying attention to Obama should see him doing this. You don’t start an attack on McCain’s credentials as a member of the military–you start it by talking about the fine mess he helped get us into in Iraq.
After doing that, you can flip it back on McCain and point out that experience as a pilot didn’t do him much good with his judgment.
The left blogosphere is so frustrated with weak candidates that they have forgotten what strength is. Part of is strategy and one never attacks strength. The netroots learned the wrong lesson in the case of Kerry and the Swift Boat liars. It wasn’t Kerry’s strength Rove had them attacking–it was his weakness. Kerry’s problem wasn’t that he was perceived as a war hero–it was that he was perceived as not being strong enough to protect America from terrorists. That was wrong, but it was perception. The guy in the brand new Carhart going out shooting or in a wet suit wind surfing doesn’t strike many Americans as tough even as he is. And there was Rove’s opening–he attacked Kerry as an elitist who didn’t share American values and the Swift Boat crap tied up Kerry on the issue he was weakest–defense.
The only way Obama loses this race is by fighting it on John McCain’s war record. McCain is very vulnerable on defense, but not through his war record. The war record is a bright shiny ball for the press to fawn over and avoid asking tough questions. Avoid talking about it–accept it and move on to McCain’s judgment.
My guess is that Clark was trying to do that, but got caught up in the moment. The rest is history and now at least two newscycles are about McCain being a war hero and the McCain camp is trying to continue that meme for as long as they can.
Great post, Arch…as always.
I think the message was greatly diluted. From what I heard and read, it was like Clark was simply dissing McCain out of hand when he simply used the same words that the host asked him in responding. I didn’t get the entire exchange until late yesterday (or the day before, I don’t recall) and in context, it was a good answer.
I could see how his single sentence, without the question being a part of the equation, being a slam. But it was a direct response to a question – verbatim in response.
But that was fuzzy in much of what I read. And that’s where apologies and such become required.
Look at this blog and watch how the right does this over and over and over. A snippet here, a completely chopped and altered sentence there. That’s how they work. There is no truth. It’s all spin. All spin.
http://bigotsunitedformccain.blogspot.com/
You’ve got an ad up for Rick Perlstein’s book up, but you obviously haven’t read it. Anyone who’s studied Nixon’s career quickly realizes that he achieved his remarkable political victories by going directly after his opponent’s greatest strengths (Voorhis’ liberalism, Humphrey’s commitment to anti-poverty programs and civil rights, McGovern’s identification with the “New Politics”–which, conversely, was the one topic they were least prepared to defend. Your point about message control is fine, but don’t assume it’s the gospel truth. In politics, there are plenty of ways to “skin a cat,” and plenty of politicos have done it by going after their opponents strengths. The question is, how well do you handle your opponent’s response? Can you provoke a disproportionate reaction? Can you pounce on any mistakes in the reply. Can you use their reaction to reframe the debate? Whether or not Clark’s ploy achieved this is another question entirely.
And you didn’t read the post. The point isn’t to not attack a strength, it’s don’t attack the strength on it’s best point.
“The only way Obama loses this race is by fighting it on John McCain’s war record. McCain is very vulnerable on defense, but not through his war record. The war record is a bright shiny ball for the press to fawn over and avoid asking tough questions. Avoid talking about it–accept it and move on to McCain’s judgment.”
Nixon didn’t attack on Humphrey’s best achievements, he did it on his unsuccessful achievements. As I say above, attacking McCain on his judgment is the way to attack his ‘strength’ on terrorism–not the one thing that reinforces the idea. Fighting about John McCain’s war record is like highlighting Humphrey’s 48 Speech and the 1965 voting rights act. It’s just stupid.
I couldn’t disagree with you more, AP. First off, McCain’s already running on his war record and he’s behind in every poll on the planet. It’s a basic misjudgment by the McCain campaign to think that when people are losing their jobs and worried about their homes, food prices etc., that Iraq, foreign policy, homeland security trumps feeding your family. McCain’s shiny war service isn’t going to make them think he’s the man to get the economy out of the tank.
In fact, in recent memory, people have never been elected on their war record. Draft dodger George W. Bush beat Vietnam vet John Kerry. Draft dodger Bill Clinton beat WW2 vets George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole. Army reservist (who never saw action) Ronald Reagan beat WW2 navy midshipman Jimmy Carter and WW2 vet Bob Dole.
Running on your war record it a lousy way to make yourself president. In fact, a honorable war record has always been seen as an irrelevance.
And, yes, you can take the shine off military service. The swiftboaters managed it very effectively. When all was said and done, most people didn’t parse who said what and why. The lasting impression was that Kerry exaggerated his record and dishonored those who served with him.
Similarly, by keeping the argument front and centre over Clark’s remarks, all the McCain camp does is point back to Clark’s original contention – being a POW doesn’t have any relevance to being a POTUS. In fact, it’s given Clark ample opportunity to both clarify and amplify his remarks. And when this particular storm has passed – as with the swiftboaters – the original point is what 90% of people will remember. It’s a potent and accurate contention.
McCain is spending another week beating a drum that people are tired of listening to. His military record only gets currency in the light of an October surprise that suddenly makes security the most pressing issue – an attack on Iran for example. And Democrats have no control over what what Bush might do in that regard.
McCain’s got one strength. It’s being effectively dismantled by a surrogate. While Obama gets to quickly disavow the remarks and talk about his own agenda, McCain is left to defend himself and his relevance. Another week lost.
Clark’s point has been well-made, has been given wide coverage and will have an effect. It already has.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25479327/
Your point about not attacking a “strength on it’s best point” does not make much sense in either this context or any other. However, while I don’t expect we’ll see eye-to-eye on this matter, I found it interesting to note that the quote you provided implicitly states that Democrats should concede to McCain an issue that he can always retreat to in order to bolster his credibility. You even go so far as to write that “McCain’s only strength” is his record. HOW can the Demcrats excoriate McCain’s weaknesses on Defense when he has a fallback position that people such as yourself have deemed inviolate. To simply abdicate one’s responsibility to attack that point WHEN it is being used as crutch is, dare I say, “stupid.”
One can also reach an entirely different interpretation of the Swiftboat campaign’s objective: Kerry’s Vietnam service, like McCain’s, WAS considered by his campaign to be strength (anyone remember that “Reporting for Duty” nonsense in Boston). Hence, Kerry’s record had to sullied if the wider narrative the Republicans were attempting to construct was to be sustained.
Again, these are subjective matters–I don’t believe there’s an answer that is “objectively” correct.
However, you’re simply wrong about the history, which happens to be my speciality–Nixon deliberately and explicitly went after Humphrey’s identification with the Great Society and Civil Rights by pointing out that these endeavors had made the United States worse off. He didn’t simply accept that Humphrey was motivated by a noble intent and move on. Rather, he turned Humphrey’s liberalism into an albatross by equating it with the social disorder of the period. Oh, and let’s not forget that the Republicans in general had no qualms about attacking Humphrey’s identification with Civil Rights and Open Housing, even if Nixon shied away from such attacks directly.
Now, whether or not the Democrats should adopt this position is a matter for debate. But before calling it “stupid,” but you should, perhaps, reflect on the fact that history does not bear you out.
===Rather, he turned Humphrey’s liberalism into an albatross by equating it with the social disorder of the period.
Which is exactly the point. In the case of McCain, this is equivalent to attacking his judgment, not his service. Nixon didn’t attack Humphrey on his 1948 convention speech nor his work on the civil rights act or the voting rights act, he attacked him on the issue by showing disorder and ineffectiveness which then hurt Humphrey on those issues. It wasn’t a frontal attack on what made Humphrey popular, it was an attack that redefined the comparison point to what was unpopular about Humphrey.
Again, you don’t seem to be reading what I’m saying, but arguing against a caricature.
It’s not at all that Obama’s campaign shouldn’t attack McCain on his reputation for being ‘strong on defense,’ it’s that they should attack by redefining the issue by attacking where he’s weakest on the issue–judgment and Iraq. Talking about whether his status as a veteran or being a prisoner of war is a good thing or not is completely besides the point and why it’s a giant headache for message control. It’s irrelevant to the attack the Obama campaign is hitting and takes them off message talking about the one thing McCain has going for him–biography. Attacking the biography frontally, doesn’t do any good because it’s not the point.
“One can also reach an entirely different interpretation of the Swiftboat campaign’s objective: Kerry’s Vietnam service, like McCain’s, WAS considered by his campaign to be strength (anyone remember that “Reporting for Duty” nonsense in Boston). Hence, Kerry’s record had to sullied if the wider narrative the Republicans were attempting to construct was to be sustained.”
Yes, and the Kerry campaign was full of complete fools. Kerry’s strength wasn’t his war record–the war record at best could bolster one of his weaknesses. His strength was George Bush is a radical boob who needs someone to clean up after him. Instead we had an election about whether or not gay marriage was bad or really bad and who would fight an unwinnable war better.
And I think Fast Eddie points out why attacking McCain on his veteran status is pointless–it hasn’t done anyone any good since Eisenhower and probably before that Tippecanoe. It’s the last thing we need or should be talking about. It doesn’t get McCain in the end much except as a diversion and it gets the Obama campaign off message.
McCain’s positions are a disaster by themselves and his Bob Rumson meets Bob Dole demeanor is going to kill him. The point is to not get in the way with that and let McCain control news cycles. Take the one issue he can whine about off the table by granting it and define the debate being about judgment, a horrible war, and a horrible economy.
It’s silly that we’re arguing on such a point–perhaps it’s just semantics. Nevertheless, I have not said that McCain’s war record should be attacked–though, if he were Democrat, is there any doubt that it would? Rather, the point is to deny it as a fallback. You seem to have accepted the Republican narrative regarding this matter–namely, that McCain was attacked. Clark did not bring up the issue. For that matter, neither did Webb, who wasn’t spared either. What Clark did do, justifiably in my opinion, was RESPOND that McCain was unjustified in using his record as a means to avoid criticism concerning his fitness for the Presidency. Unless the public can be made to think “So what?” whenever McCain trots out the issue, how can any attacks on his abilities really be sustained? McCain has nothing but his image as a “maverick,” and his war record. I’m arguing that they must be dealt with, while you’re presuming that an issues-driven campaign will work. I hope you’re right, but the experience of previous elections indicates that personalities matter more than the substance of policies.
As for Kerry and his people being “fools,” the matter is irrelevant–you concede that THEY thought it was a strength . Republicans negated its effectiveness by attacking him a way that still sickens me–cased closed.
Again, I am not arguing that McCain’s “veteran status” is fair game for criticism–rather, as Clark attempted to do, it must be called into question as a tool for legitmizing his candidacy.
Furthermore, as Fast Eddies argues, a case can be made that Clark’s comments (as opposed to those of the Obama campaign, which you baldly assert were behind the whole thing), while granting the McCain “control [of the] news cycles,” have suceeded because McCain’s response was, to put it mildly, hysterical. Let people debate the issue of whether being a fighter-pilot like our current commander-in-chief is really such a wonderful qualification for higher office. Better yet, get a man with impeccable military qualifications to do it. Obama’s campaign can distance themselves from it since Clark is not one of their surrogates; Clark is largely immune from criticism because of his background; McCain is forced to spend an inordinate amount of time on the issue, which he can no longer take for granted. Alas, I don’t give Democrats credit for that kind of political jujitsu.
Finally, Republicans did not simply attack Humphrey’s “judgment.” I don’t where you’re getting your history from, but Republicans (and, for that matter, Wallace) were anything but subtle or nuanced in their attacks againt Great Society-era liberalism. They argued it was an inherently malevolent force in American life–it didn’t simply contribute to the social problems of the 60s, it WAS the problem. Accordingly, Humphrey’s support for, let’s say, Civil Rights (up to and including his ’48 speech, which was never far from Southerners minds–Strom Thurmond certainly did not forget) was the explicit focus for series of attacks (e.g. it incited blacks to riot, stripped whites of their “property rights” by enforcing open housing, hurt children by depriving schools of federal funding if they did not desegregate in the manner decreed by some federal bureaucrat). In other words, support for Civil Rights (except within bounds deliniated by Republicans) became politically toxic. If this isn’t a case of turning a strength into a weakness, rather than shying away from it, I don’t know what is.
Returning to the point I made in my first post, Nixon never shied away from attacking his rivals’ main strengths–it was his modus operandi throughout his career. You can dispute its utility in this particular circumstance, but not its past effectiveness. Which, I seem to recall, was all that I was ever arguing. (I must say, though, this has been fun.)