This is Who Obama Smeared Today

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 18:06


On a day in which Obama disavowed both Moveon and Wes Clark, it's worth making a few points.  One, Barack Obama did not support Ned Lamont's campaign against Joe Lieberman, Wes Clark did.  Two, Barack Obama did not bother to vote up or down on the resolution censuring Moveon for their Petraeus ad, which is part of a pattern of non-votes (Kyl-Lieberman anyone?).  Three, in Obama's smear of Wes Clark, Obama actively took Clark's words out of context and then used them to disavow a military veteran who had served his country with great distinction, returning home from Vietnam after being riddled with bullets, and going on to stop a genocide in the Balkans as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.  Apparently going after a veteran is ok, as long it's a Democrat.

Obama's disavowal of Wes Clark is not a surprise if you were paying attention to his endorsement of Joe Lieberman in 2006, his wan opposition to the Military Commissions Act in 2006, and his vacillating conduct around Moveon and Petraeus.  It doesn't make any sense, either.  Despite Obama's handling of Lieberman with kid gloves, Lieberman is an implacable foe and will be speaking at the Republican National Convention.

History matters.  Memory matters.

Let's get some better Democrats in office.  Only four more donations to go.

Matt Stoller :: This is Who Obama Smeared Today

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

This is Who Obama Smeared Today | 63 comments
Still hope? (4.00 / 3)
From CCN:

Communications Direct Bill Burton
Submitted by jerry25 on June 30, 2008 - 3:28pm.

I just got off the phone with Obama HQ.
I was told that it was Communications Director, Bill Burton, who was behind the criticism of Wes's remark, not Senator Obama.

I voiced my displeasure and others have already. 80% of the people on Obama's web site (who saw the actual video) are in support of Wes. Only those people who have an agenda and are pushing their choice for VP are against the remarks.

Wes Clark is Obama's best surrogate for Military/FP and there is still time to reverse the harm that was done by the Communications Director.

You can call Obama HQ at 866-675-2008 (option 6) and voice your displeasure. The individual was very nice and agreeable and will just ask for your name and Email address.
He will pass on your message to his superiors.

Please also pass the word around about Bill Burton.
Wes should be SOS and he should be traveling to Iraq with Obama shortly.

Perhaps this isn't over, just yet.

You think Burton would have made his statement without an OK from Obama? (4.00 / 5)
I seriously doubt that.  Surely Obama must have signed off on the statement, at a minimum.

I'm not sure you're suggesting otherwise, but I don't know how else to interpret the blog commenter saying that "Bill Burton...was behind the criticism of Wes's remark, not Senator Obama."  

[ Parent ]
I have no idea (4.00 / 2)
Obama is a busy guy, I'm not sure what goes through him and what does not.  Regardless, there is some opportunity for the Obama camp to save face on this.  As I stated elsewhere, I'm crossing my fingers but not holding my breath.
[ Parent ]
How exactly can they save face? (4.00 / 2)
I don't see how they can back down from what they've already said.

Also, if Burton went off the reservation and said what he did without Obama's OK, then the campaign is guilty of gross incompetence (which is why I don't buy that explanation).  If a campaign spokesperson is going to distance the candidate that explicitly from that prominent a surrogate, it had damn well better be going through the candidate for an explicit OK, or else that spokesperson needs to be fired immediately.

[ Parent ]
Are you kidding? (0.00 / 0)
Bill Burton is the spokesmen for the Obama for America campaign.

In that capacity he makes dozens of statements a day. Do you really think he calls up Obama before making each and every one?

Bill Burton has been given a job as a spokesmen and he made that comment as a spokesmen. He was not given the job of saying stuff that Obama told him to.

He might of checked with his boss Robert Gibbs. But the idea that he checked with Obama before making that statement is pretty ridiculous.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
There aren't dozens of media feeding frenzies every day (0.00 / 0)
Nor does Obama come under pressure dozens of times a day to distance himself from something a high-profile surrogate said on a Sunday morning talk show.  I don't know the exact mechanics of who reports to whom within the campaign infrastructure, but I find it hard to believe that a campaign spokeperson would go ahead with a statement like this without getting it cleared at the highest level.  

Doesn't a presidential candidate need full control over which surrogates get condemned and which surrogates get supported via pushback?  What if a spokesperson went the wrong way and denounced someone who was supposed to be defended, or vice versa?  It would be a MAJOR screw-up, and a major blow to the campaign's ability to work with other surrogates.  

[ Parent ]
Is this . . . (0.00 / 0)
part of Obama's pattern of blaming over-zealous staffers?  (The message gets sent and he innoculates himself against any fallout.)
[ Parent ]
Let's be accurate about this (4.00 / 5)
Obama's campaign statement did not 'disavow' General Clark -- they chose to reject and therefore implicitly disagree with General Clark's statement on his appearance on Face the Nation.

Also, you're omitting the part where General Clark in his interview with you on OpenLeft chose to similarly denounce MoveOn's Betrayus ad.

Look, I agree with 100% of what Clark said yesterday -- he was calling Schieffer out on his ridiculousness and for the media fan worship of McCain. I think it was stupid, bone-headed, and weak for Obama's campaign to react the way it has, in John Kerry-esque fashion a la 2004.  

I signed VoteVets' petition supporting Clark, and I don't like what I'm seeing from Obama's campaign right now. But you can be fully accurate and still make the same point.

How does your post substantively - as in big picture- change the point here? (4.00 / 2)
Am misisng some conclusion of the big picture that you didn't make? Serious question because reading the post feels like a tree argument versus the forrest. Trees are important, but the forrest is more important.
[ Parent ]
My point (0.00 / 0)
is that we don't need to be hyperbolic to still be able to criticize Obama and his campaign. You can defend Wes Clark, his integrity, and the absolute truth of what he said in that interview without saying that he himself has been disavowed.

As for the 'tree' of Clark's characterization of the Betrayus ad and MoveOn, my point was merely that you can't really lump Clark and MoveOn together as if Clark had defended them from attack last year when the Congress capitulated on that speech issue -- it's just not accurate to do so.

Clark has in no way been disavowed. The campaign has once again shown itself to be cautious and short-sighted, but the criticism of Clark's remarks was very tepid in this type of game -- they didn't even make clear that they disagreed with most or all of what Clark said. Could be that's what they meant, but the actual statement merely repudiates "General Clark's statement", which to my eyes and ears means the specific comment about getting shot down not being a qualification for President.

Criticize Obama, do it for substantive reasons. I have done so on multiple occasions on this blog and others since his awful rhetorical capitulation on the FISA bill (we still have to see what he in fact does and how we votes when given the chance after the 4th of July recess), and I most likely will not be contributing any more money to his campaign, and assuredly won't before September. Use the current rightward tack of the Presidential campaign and complete misunderstanding of why the rhetoric of this situation is so crucial to promote and push progressive candidates. I agree with all of this.

But I don't think it's smart to create a deliberately slanted worldview to do so. Criticize, but be honest while doing so -- imo, that makes the criticisms even more powerful.  

[ Parent ]
Ok, can we please, at least, not be so ridiculously dramatic? (4.00 / 6)
Obama didn't "smear" Clark today... he basically just didn't defend a surrogate against a smear.

Am I happy about it?  No.  I think Obama is being stupidly weak and timid about this.  But, I think you're implying something different when you say that Obama "smeared" Clark.  He did nothing of the sort.

Boy Howdy! (4.00 / 3)
Apparently going after a veteran is ok, as long it's a Democrat.

Obama's double-standard is exactly the same as the Republicans!

Over at TPM, a reader's comments were frontpaged:

TPM Reader BA finds himself befuddled:
    Continues to boggle my mind what a difference 4 years can make to the conservatives.

    1996: Bob Dole is a war hero! Clinton is a draft dodger! WORSHIP THE WAR HERO!

    2000: Forget the war! Ignore the potential Vietnam-era AWOL-ness of our candidate, and his complete lack of foreign policy knowledge! He's got integrity!

    2004: So what your candidate actually fought and was injured in the same war during which our candidate was so very much NOT AWOL! We mock his service and question the legitimacy of his injuries! Have a purple band-aid to wear at our convention!

    2008: Only a certified war hero can lead this country! WORSHIP THE WAR HERO!

Is Barack Obama really as stupid as your average Red State commentator?

Or is it merely mendacity?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Obama did not smear Clark... (4.00 / 2)
...Clark went off message.  Period.  Obama has made it clear that he's not going to swift-boat McCain (as much as he and his party deserves to be swiftboated after their despicable campaign in 2004 against John Kerry).

Nothing better to rile up the conservative base, really, then to feed this distraction.  So, Obama went right back on message and quelled McCain's little "outrage" opportunity... now, McCain has little or nothing here....

Yeah, I think that McCain should get the same treatment as Kerry did, but it won't be effective 'cos he's a republican and the double-standard... As much as we want to give him the Kerry treatment, there are much better ways to take down McCain.

Now, if McCain keeps pushing the issue, then it's time to bring out pictures of McCain wearing a purple band-aid in 2004  and go after the double standard.  I think the Obama campaign is ready for this.  In the meantime, we can lay the groundwork...

I swear that some people want to fight just for the sake of fighting.  Don't forget the real goal here, to win the election.  That would be the ultimate revenge, not some petty fight that doesn't help our chances.


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

It's a crappy message and here's why (4.00 / 2)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/a...

And you are absolutely wrong. McCain doesn't have to push the issue. It's understood by most americans as part of McCain story for why he's best to be Commander and chief. Hence this poll:

http://time-blog.com/real_clea...

[ Parent ]
That's why McCain wants this fight... (0.00 / 0)
...his time as a POW, "sacrificing" for the country would be put on spotlight... he would come out smelling like roses.  Obama is not going to give him his little prize.  He's not going to be sucked into a giant distraction.  Anyone who knows Obama knows should have known that he did not spend a month fighting this battle to lose the war.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
My counter arguement (4.00 / 1)
I've debated both sides a bit on this list, and this is the one argument I think has some merit.  You do have to pick and choose your battles.

But you can do it more artfully than this.  Don't actually take McCain's side -- that's just dumb.  You don't just toss someone like Clark to the side.

[ Parent ]
And why respond so quickly, too? (4.00 / 2)
Why not see if Clark can just go and defend himself?  A 'no comment' is better than this.
[ Parent ]
supspension of disbelief doesn't work that way (0.00 / 0)
 The emotional narrative of McCain's story only works if people feel it viscerally. People already know the story and he would continue (and now will continue) to use it to say war her=commander and chief without saying it. Again, that's what I suspect the poll numbers are about. I am not saying anything particularly earth shatering. It is is basic story tellng 101. So long as the emotional button pushing of a story remains unseen and seemlessly in the background it pushes you to suspend disbelief. The minute it's noticed, the emotional impact decreases. strategically this just makes it harder for obama to argue with it later  
[ Parent ]
The Obama campaign response feeds the distraction (0.00 / 0)
because they only focus on the superficial part where Clark supposedly slammed McCain's "patriotism" and by extension disrespected all veterans.

The issue is whether John McCain is qualified to be Commander in Chief, not whether he is a patriot, or how many planes he crashed.

Obama has not made that point.



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

[ Parent ]
Clark's attack was not a swift-boat attack (4.00 / 9)
Clark was trying to argue that there's more to setting military policy than having served.  That's the opposite of a swift-boat attack.  Clark was saying that McCain was recommending horrible policy.  It's only if you cut his speech and take it completely out of context that you can even construe it as anything else.
[ Parent ]
And how the hell do you hope to win the election if we cede the whole (4.00 / 4)
"Big strong Hulk smash tank.  Hulk be good president.  Warrior make good Chief of Staff.  Terrorists make Hulk mad, Hulk smash them!" argument to the Republicans?
[ Parent ]
Man (4.00 / 6)
I read an anti-Obama post and think they are overreacting.  I read this kind of defense of Obama and see how clearly incorrect it is.  Clark said nothing that anyone with an ounce of thought would disagree with.  At least, I don't think any random person who has been shot down in a fighter plane qualifies to be president, do you?

The truth is out there, somewhere.

Obama really, really needs to learn to defend the left using the same sorts of language he uses when defending the right with whom he disagrees.  Some ask for more, but that is all I ask for.

[ Parent ]
not a left-right issue (4.00 / 2)
it's a how not to be played issue. it was easy i suppose with clinton, but now he's facing someone who is liked, and therefore, the set of assumptions about how to address him are different emotionally. you can not simply let assumptions such as war hero=commander in chief laying around in the back of people's mind. emotionally it just leaves too much to overcome alone with out a clear attack on the meme.
[ Parent ]
left-right (4.00 / 1)
I can accept it isn't a right-left issue, but the point remains.  Obama is very good when addressing conservatives of recognizing their concerns before telling them why he disagrees.  But Obama doesn't seem to use this ability in other arenas.

For example, if he chose to reject Clark's comments, he could have said something like:

"I understand what General Clark was trying to say and, clearly, no one can disagree with the facts of Clark's statement.  Neither I nor John McCain have ever held executive command over the military the way Bill Clinton or Wes Clark have.  But others have used similar words to ridicule John McCain's military service, so I understand why he take offense to Clark's words, as did I.  ..."

Or whatever.  

[ Parent ]
One of the reasons I disagree with (4.00 / 1)
those who argued that Obama represented generational change can be found in this  discussion with you. I completely agree with you, by the way. The problem is that he isn't a shift from the centrist defensive behaviors of the past 30 years. He's just a Trojan horse that continues it for another 8.  Under this view of the world, he must look with suspion at the left to be 'credible' and be considerate of the right. My test of Obama isn't whether he's left or right on this or that issue, but strategically (or tactically) what does he choose to do. If he were truly as post partisan (I used to say to a friend who supported him during the primary) then I would expect his position to be pulled without regard from both the further  left and further right.  If he were truly post partisan he would be less worried about playing defensive to the right because he fears that if he doesn't triangulate he will lose. The only differenc ein my mind between Obama and clinton was clinton had 15 years of baggage. I still haven't seen anything to suggest I am wrong. I really am only left with hope that I am wrong. But, as I told Rosenber, I am cyincal, and, therefore, I suspect what we see now, is how he will govern. This means that the chance for progressive change will have been lost. But- to be frank- I can't blame him. People, in this case, the American people get the leadership it deserves. We for the most part (again my cynanism) aren't a country capable of real discourse anymore. Thus identity and other faux dicussions have become all we can talk about. This only advantages the right. If he were truly post partisan he would have been able to discuss all of this.
[ Parent ]
Clark is a good man and (4.00 / 5)
was a key part of the antiwar effort.  Having grown up during the Vietan War (I was 14 in 1969 when I went to my first antiwar demonstration), I know how important it was to have a retired General like Clark oppose the invasion.  I never was a "Clarkie," but I always respected General Clark.  He put a lie to the charge that opposition to the invasion of Iraq was unpatriotic.  He was a General who fought in Vietnam and elsewhere, and led our effort in Kosovo, I believe in the 90s.  

His point about McCain was correct.  As a General, he knew the interplay of diplomacy and military power in a way Mccain never experienced as a pilot.  General Clark would not and did not denigrate John McCain's service.

I don't know that I would call what Obama did as a "smear," but it was disappointing that he so easily repudiated Clark.  Again, he endorsed Republcian frames.

I doubt that General Clark will be putting his ass on the line for Obama anymore.  Oh well, there's always John kerry, I suppose, or Jim Webb, to defend Obama on military matters, but neither were Generals like Clark.  

This Chnaged My Opinion of Obama (4.00 / 2)
For months I have an outspoken supporter of Sen. Obama on this and other blogs.  I will continue to support Sen. Obama all the way to the White House.  I've also disagreed with many people on this blog about Wes Clark being the best VP nominee (I prefer Biden).  

However, what Obama did to Clark in "rejecting" his FTN comment was an absolute disgrace.  One of the dog whistles that progressive like me have thought we were hearing from Obama was his claim that the American people are ready for a campaign with an open and honest discourse.  However, apparently Obama now believes that that strategy is inoperative, because I can't believe that he thinks that Clark in any way questioned McCain's service or patriotism.  Nor can you convince me that Obama believes that being shot down is a qualification for being President.  This was a pathetic statement on behalf of Obama that indicates that he has yielded the point on whether the American public is ready for an open and honest campaign.  



A vote against Health Care Reform is a vote for ten 9/11s every single year!

This Changed My Opinion (4.00 / 3)
For months I have been an outspoken supporter of Sen. Obama on this and other blogs.  I will continue to support Sen. Obama all the way to the White House.  I've also disagreed with many people on this blog about Wes Clark being the best VP nominee (I prefer Biden).  

However, what Obama did to Clark in "rejecting" his FTN comment was an absolute disgrace.  One of the dog whistles that progressive like me have thought we were hearing from Obama was his claim that the American people are ready for a campaign with an open and honest discourse.  However, apparently Obama now believes that that strategy is inoperative, because I can't believe that he thinks that Clark in any way questioned McCain's service or patriotism.  Nor can you convince me that Obama believes that being shot down is a qualification for being President.  This was a pathetic statement on behalf of Obama that indicates that he has yielded the point on whether the American public is ready for an open and honest campaign.  



A vote against Health Care Reform is a vote for ten 9/11s every single year!

Prove it (0.00 / 0)
 
in Obama's smear of Wes Clark, Obama actively took Clark's words out of context and then used them to disavow a military veteran who had served his country with great distinction

Really? Let's see it. Where is the link?

I want to believe you. Show me your proof.



John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


ok (4.00 / 2)
"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark," said Obama campaign spokeman Bill Burton.

link

Matt may be a bit over-dramatic, but unless you believe Obama thinks being a shot down in a fighter plane makes you automatically qualified to be president, what other conclusion can you come to.

Now there is some wiggle-room, but not much.  Obama's choice to be a community organizer instead of going for the big bucks doesn't make him qualified to be president, either, but it did make him the man he became.  The same can be said of McCain and his military experience.  In that sense, Clark was incorrect, but only in that sense.  You have to assume Clark meant more than what he said.

[ Parent ]
Thank you. But not close. (4.00 / 1)
Where did he smear Wes Clark in your statement. Where did he "actively" take Clark's words out of context? Where did he disavow a military veteran?


John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


[ Parent ]
watch clark (0.00 / 0)

Watch it.  Media outlets and the Obama campaign are using Clark's cropped statement in which he simply repeats Schaffer's question: http://mediamatters.org/items/...

[ Parent ]
That is Clark talking (0.00 / 0)
Show me proof of this:

in Obama's smear of Wes Clark, Obama actively took Clark's words out of context and then used them to disavow a military veteran who had served his country with great distinction

It should be simple enough to provide the link.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


[ Parent ]
20/20 hindsight (4.00 / 2)
If Clark had said "Getting shot down is not, in and of itself, a qualification to be President" I don't think the McCain campaign could have made the kind of hay with this that they have.

But it is SO clear that Obama is playing right into their hands. When Obama was campaigning as a progressive in the primaries, he always seemed one step ahead of Clinton. Now that he is disavowing everything he stood for just a month ago (his views on NAFTA, FISA, MoveOn, etc.) he seems to be a step BEHIND on everything. I wonder if and when his campaign team will notice there's a correlation here....

[ Parent ]
This is stupid. (4.00 / 5)
1. Bob Schieffer tricks Wes Clark into saying something stupid.

2. Obama campaign publicly disagrees with stupid thing Wes Clark said.

3. Thin-skinned bloggers proclaim the end of the world, the progressive coalition etc because Barack Obama dared to disagree with Wes Clark.

On days like this the blogosphere doesn't really seem like an improvement on the "MSM", but just a reflection of it: The same level of silliness and lack of proportion, just with an inverted set of CW.

Ouch (0.00 / 0)
On days like this the blogosphere doesn't really seem like an improvement on the "MSM", but just a reflection of it: The same level of silliness and lack of proportion, just with an inverted set of CW.

It is almost as if both the blogosphere and the MSM are made up of actual human beings or something.  Nah, that can't be it; I must come up with another theory to explain it all...

While I disagree with points 1, 2 and 3, gotta give you your due on the final sentence.

[ Parent ]
Could not agree more (4.00 / 1)
I mean seriously.  How can such a large bunch of bright people not see that Clark's comment was inartful at best?  I read it yesterday and immediately winced, the same way I did when Michelle Obama had her "oops" moment and the same way I did when Samantha Power said "monster."

His point was correct but the way he said it makes it sound like he is having a joke at the expense of veterans.  It implies (accidentally, perhaps) that all McCain could have learned from his time in service, from his capture, etc. is how to get shot at.  Now clearly, Clark doesn't mean it that way, but it was still a stupid, snide way to phrase it and I wouldn't blame someone for being a little annoyed.

Based on these hysterical reactions ("absolute disgrace," "who Obama smeared"), it seems to me like folks want to be upset about something.

[ Parent ]
because we have seen this play before and we know how it plays out (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
It's called "Divide and Conquer" (4.00 / 1)
Republicans trick Democrats into taking each other out, then they come in and mop up the survivors.

Never did like this play.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
plays only work if people are too stupid or sure of themselves to fall for it (0.00 / 0)
I think obama, and some of his supporters (only some since I m  officially one as of may 6th 2008) need to get that they aren't the smartest people in the room everytime. I don't want to use the 'a' word, but I am thinking there is way too much arroagance (we have a dark master plan you can't see being thrownout). This sort of analysis assumes the GOP is stupid. They maybe bankrupt. They maybe corrupt. Hell,t hey may not even know how to govern worth shit, but they know how to campaign, and they aren't stupid about it. This was an unnecessary unforced error. I've seen any number of statements by others here which would have been better than what Obama's camp has actually said. That's the scary part because it suggests a groupmind set going on and that means a lot more mistakes ahead. I can as always only hope I am wrong, but this was just stupid.  I don't claim to be a political genious or even anything more than an armchair party, but it's clear this was silly on its face. He can only hope no one will later call him on what he says today when he must go after Mccain for this frame of war hero=commander and chief.
[ Parent ]
And they do this at the Dem leadership level (4.00 / 3)
Not the supporter level. None of this circular firing squad nonsense would be happening if Obama and leading Dems consistently backed up people on their own side and stood up for the issues that they're supposed to stand up for, instead of consistently caving into the GOP on issue after issue, whether out of fear, or complicity. If Obama stood with us, there would be no major divisions on our side. It is people like him who cause or allow it to happen, by being weak, cowardly or complicit. The GOP divides the Dem leadership, not its base.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Look at us now (0.00 / 0)
He caved!

No he didn't!

He caved!

No he didn't!

Wouldn't it be nice to vote for a person who didn't put you through this over and over?

Someday we'll get the Democrats we deserve.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
"Someday we'll get the Democrats we deserve." (0.00 / 0)
I think we already have them

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
And someday we'll all have ponies (0.00 / 0)
For now, we hold our noses and make do. Ugh.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
cropped (4.00 / 1)
Watch the video.  It's quite obvious that Clark was responding to Schaffer while being completely respectful of McCain's service.


[ Parent ]
Not the point (0.00 / 0)
I agree that Clark could and should have phrased his words a bit more artfully. Whatever. It's done, and at heart nonetheless still true. But the real point is that Obama shouldn't have disowned Clark and thrown him under the bus, to score points with the High Broderites and all those illusory swing voters who supposedly buy into such nonsense. They don't. They see it for what it is, disloyalty, cheap pandering and flip-flopping. Obama thinks he's being smart, but he's actually being stupid--not to mention unprincipled.

He's slowly giving away the election to McCain, in precisely the same way that Dems have been doing it for decades, by conceding premises right and left and doing exactly what they GOP wants him to do. And I was stupid enough to believe that he was politically smart, let alone tough and principled. Turns out he's not any of these things. He's riding high right now, having drunk of his own Kool Aid and believing in his own invincibility. But there's a crash in store for him, and he's going to be the cause of it. What a fool. And an unprincipled one at that.

Plus ca change...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
well said, kind of makes my comment below beside the point n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
This can still become a plus (0.00 / 0)
As someone who enthusiastically supported Clark in 2004 and feels a roughly comparable level of support for Obama this year, it was painful to read Obama's "rejection" of Clark's statement about McCain, since the latter seems like a key point to make (and keep making) in order to deflate some of the media myths about McCain.  And that message was delivered by one of the few Democratic national figures with the military credentials to do so with unambiguous credibility and experience.  

The fact that the resulting flare-up of classically inaccurate and intense MSM reaction appears to have stepped on what I hear was a very good "patriotism" speech today by Obama makes it all the more unfortunate.  

All that being said, there's no reason why both parties can't contribute to a "message recovery" process, while using the media attention to get their respective parts of the total message more in sync.  

In my view, Clark is pretty good at sticking to his guns and not backing down when he's right (which he is in this case).  Isn't it possible that he can use the publicity to clarify and drive home his core point (which is both valid and valuable), while Obama's campaign can find a way to clarify what they were "rejecting," while communicating a message that's consistent with the thrust of Clark's point about McCain's lack of qualification for commander in chief?

Given Bob Scheiffer's comment about Obama not getting shot down in a plane, Clark's response seemed right on target to me.  And even as a standalone soundbite (which I haven't seen on TV yet), it could still do more good than harm.  That being said, if I could rewrite exactly what Clark said, I might choose different words.  The same is true of Obama's "rejection" statement.  But I think there's still time for recovery.  

While I personally would have preferred Obama to stand behind Clark on this, I'm coming to accept that (quoting Hillary) "he's in it to win it," and will do what he and his team think is best to do that (whether they're correct is a separate but very valid question).  Recent developments suggest that this means backing down and heading for the mushy middle on FISA and other issues, and clumsily trying to avoid involvement in the Clark-McCain exchange.

While I think its fine and often quite helpful to criticize Obama on a lot of this stuff (I did call his campaign office to complain about the Clark "rejection"), my main concern is how we can help him win in November and then exert maximum leverage on his administration and Congress after that.

Though my TV's back in the closet, I'm tempted to take it out to see how this flare-up goes.  I hope Clark keeps hammering away and, if he needs to, says what's needed to insure that he takes the incoming fire, not Obama.  I'm pretty sure he can take whatever the enemy throws at him, especially since he's not running for anything, so doesn't have to worry about his polling numbers or fundraisers.  In my view he's one of the smartest, most courageous and loyal Dems on the national stage, and one who isn't afraid to tell an MSM journalist or pundit the truth, even if they're unable to hear it.  Perhaps this uproar will give him more chances to make the point.  That alone might be worth hauling the TV out of the closet.

From someone who is not thrilled with Obama's recent actions, this is overblown (4.00 / 1)
Clark's comment, however accurate, was very inartful and could be seen as minimizing McCain's military record, and at the very least, makes that an issue.  So Obama disavowed that statement.  Big deal.  I don't think he wanted to have a fight about McCain's military service and I don't blame him.

Obama's actions on FISA were inexcusable, but disavowing a comment is not exactly cause for all the outrage I see here.

I find this to be a big "meh"

When you're in a war with an evil and entrenched enemy (4.00 / 3)
You DO NOT publically take a club to your own side, either to score points with that illusory center by showing how much of a DFH-hating non-partisan you really are, or because you think that they actually deserve it. The former is stupid and will not impress anyone, and the latter is just plain morally wrong. He refused to condemn Lieberman, but did condemn Clark. That says a lot about his character. And, I think, his political acumen.

My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the village...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Another Stoller self hating post (0.00 / 0)
here we go again....Stoller neglects to say that WesClark(who I like) disavowed the move-on Betrayus ad also...among other things.  Hey Matt you are really helping out the progressive movement...NOT......
Sensitive on issue of betrayals on our team (4.00 / 1)
The Dems have ruined their brand by caving and apologizing for their team members and themselves. They all do it. Maybe not Kennedy and Feingold. Funnily, not Hillary, either but that's another matter. The rest are always SO sorry, so scrambling backwards that they fall down in a tangle of sorry. They make me sick. Obama? He's very cautious, not bold. He was dragged grumbling into joining the filibusters against Alito. I remember. Not bold. Howard Dean is bold. John Edwards talks boldly, but his actions, votes weren't bold.

Here is bold [from to Chris Hedges]:

Sen. Frank Church, as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence in 1975, "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. Telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is n
o return."

Chris Hedges: "When Sen. Church made this statement, the NSA was not authorized to spy on American citizens. Today it is."


Count me among the perplexed at the level of outrage (4.00 / 1)
Although I thought Clark's comments were fine, I also can comprehend how they could be taken out of context.  

But there is no way that Obama's rejecting the comments amount to a "smear" of Clark or "throwing him under the bus." In fact, I still think it's conceivable that Clark could be his VP. Disagreeing with comments is not the equivalent to a betrayal.    

And Clark clearly does not feel betrayed (4.00 / 1)
Moments after that last post, I see Clark on MSNBC now, cheerfully saying that he was speaking for himself and that he did not intend to diminish McCain's service.

He doesn't give the impression of someone who feels like he was "thrown under the bus."

Quit ruining a good story (4.00 / 1)


John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


[ Parent ]
Clark's a good Democrat (4.00 / 3)
and a good soldier. He'll pull that knife out of his back behind closed doors, thank you very much.

But Obama just neutralized his own best weapon on the defense issue, and for what? To curry favor with the Versailles media. Again.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Let's see (4.00 / 5)
McCain is running on the platform that his military service makes him presidential material.

Clark questions that assumption.

Obama backs McCain, thereby implicitly supporting McCain's platform.

Meanwhile, Webb's GI Bill passes, which McCain voted against.

Did Obama point that out?

nope (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
And McCain and the Chimperor tried to take credit .. (0.00 / 0)
for it today ... Webb was PO'ed tonight on KO .. he didn't say so .. but you could tell
[ Parent ]
Meanwhile, the meta wars are going full-blast (4.00 / 5)
on DailyKos and elsewhere, as some are urging everyone to SYFPH or else McCain will win, while others are saying that Obama = McCain so it doesn't really matter. Me, I'm with what I view as the principled, smart and self-confident "center" on this, that we need to support Obama, but slam him when he pulls this sort of crap like he did YET AGAIN today. It will NOT cost him the election. But if it makes him FEAR that it might cost him the election, or at least the broad mandate that he seeks and will need to be able to govern effectively--or that he'll have us as a thorn in his side as president--then it absolutely serves an important and necessary purpose. Anyone who accepts whatever Obama does without criticism, either because they truly believe that he can do no wrong, or because they fear that it will cost him the election (or both), is doing him, us, the party, the country, and themselves, a major disservice. It's a democracy, damn it--we're not supposed to all agree and fall in line.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
"SYFPH"? (0.00 / 0)
Can't cipher that one, can you help me out?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Shut Your eFfing Pie Hole (4.00 / 1)
An alternate of STFU, with wit.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
duh (0.00 / 0)
Didn't we go over this for much of 2007?  But, y'all, the smartest guys in the blogosphere, decided, for whatever reasons, to stay coy and neutral when you should have had the guts to back the guy running the overtly progressive campaign (but y'all waited until 2 days before Iowa when it m eant nothing).

Let the disappointments begin, or Krugman was right all along.

West Michigan Rising: Progressives On the West-End of the Third Coast

This is Who Obama Smeared Today | 63 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox