 |
The Media’s Special McCain Rules |
 |
As I have explained, and as have many others, Gen. Clark did not, in fact, belittle John McCain’s military record (to the contrary, he praised hi service). That hasn’t stopped McCain’s loyal defenders in the media from manufacturing outrage over something that never happened. This great clip shows how the media breathlessly, and falsely, ranted about the sliming that never was.
I think it’s worth asking where all these media advocates for fair play were in 2004, when someone really did denigrate the military record of an American war hero, John Kerry. It is almost impossible to believe, but Bob Dole (who now expresses anger over l’affaire Clark) actually questioned whether Kerry bled from his wounds, and media elites credulously repeated Dole’s false and outrageous charge. At the party’s convention, Republican delegates actually wore purple heart adhesive bandages meant to mock Kerry’s wounds. They openly belittled a man who was wounded in his country’s service.
I don’t remember Wolf Blitzer or Andrea Mitchell expressing outrage over any of these mind-bending insults.
It’s kind of cute that the media rushes to McCain’s defense even when he was never attacked in the way they claim. It would have been nice, however, if they had devoted even 1/10 the energy to exposing the absolutely disgusting attacks against military veteran and decorated war hero John Kerry.
If you don’t think there’s a double standard in the media that favors Republicans and McCain, try to imagine what would happen if Democratic delegates at this year’s convention wore prison uniforms mocking McCain’s time as a POW. Thankfully, this is absolutely unthinkable. It is worth remembering, however, that when Republicans gleefully threw sewage at the Democratic candidate in 2004, the media largely let them be.
Here, here! What Clarke said shouldn’t be the least bit controversial. I would go so far as to say he wasn’t even inelegant or ham-fisted when he said it. Nothing McCain did as the son and grandson of admirals, as a pilot, or as a POW automatically makes him “more qualified” to be president. It all shaped his worldview, so you could call it relevant, but after 25 years as a Washington insider, McCain has enough of a track record to allow us to analyze his vision without a lot of dime-store psychoanalysis.
The McCain campaign is treading water at best; Republicans are desperate–they are grasping at straws. Alas, the establishment media is all too eager to pitch them a whole bale of hay.
agreed–the only thing McCain has going for him is the media — I don’t think that’ll be enough
While I agree with you that Clark did not belittle McCain’s service, he did belittle McCain’s ability to lead. It’s true that serving his country honorably a generation ago has little to do with his ability to be president now (unlike Clark, who did have tactical command, but lacked the verve to be anything more than an also-ran four years ago), but why implicate that McCain was not qualified to be President and/or Commander in Chief (I know you like to split that hair)? Clark is basically saying that he is better qualified to lead the armed forces than McCain. Why should bother making that assertion? Just to make McCain look bad? I don’t like it and I am glad Obama distanced himself from Clark’s comments.
I don’t think Clark “belittled” McCain in any way (my fault for using that word)–he did question whether McCain’s military service is a qualification for the White House, which I think is a very fair question, and one the media has not asked. the media assumes McCain is ready to be president because of his military background. I think we need to ask what we really want in a president and what kind of qualifications matter. The media’s gossipy, gotcha oriented coverage (the way the Clark comment has been covered is an example) leaves no room for thought. Clark’s question calls for thought and, rather than snap assumptions. I don’t think Clark is making McCain look bad any more than McCain’s surrogates are making Obama look bad when they question something about McCain–that’s just part of the campaign, raising questions about the opponent. It think it is equally legitimate for McCain’s people to ask whether Obama has the qualifications to be president (and they do ask this, as does the media). But we have to take the next step–let’s not just leave the question hanging there, let’s discuss whether each candidate is qualified. I’ve tried to do that in other posts, where I talk about the judgment required of a president and I compare Obama;s judgment on Iraq with McCain’s.
Also on Andrea Mitchell, she suggested that Clark only “subsequently honored” McCain’s service: http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020010
Our press corps is weak.
Andrea Mitchell makes me crazy sometimes…I watched her do two interviews last week where McCain surrogates charged that Obama reversed course on campaign finance and she didn’t so much as mention McCain’s flip flop on that issue, when he applied for federal funding during the primaries, sought a private loan backed by the promise of federal funding, then backed out of federal funding (resulting in a letter from the FEC stating that McCain may have violated the law). Not surprised she is messing up this issue too.