From the NY Times: Paul Krugman
Submitted by Kat on July 4, 2008 - 10:50am.
New York Times | July 4, 2008
Rove’s Third Term
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Howard Dean didn’t scream. Hillary Clinton didn’t say she was staying in the race because Barack Obama might be assassinated. And Wesley Clark didn’t impugn John McCain’s military service.
Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, titled his tell-all memoir “What Happened.” But a true account of modern American politics should be titled “What Didn’t Happen.” Again and again we’ve had media firestorms over supposedly revealing incidents that never actually took place.
The latest fake scandal fit the usual pattern as an awkwardly phrased remark, lifted out of context and willfully misinterpreted, exploded across the airwaves.
What General Clark actually said was that Mr. McCain’s war service, though heroic, didn’t necessarily constitute a qualification for the presidency. It was a blunt but truthful remark, and not at all outrageous — especially given the fact that General Clark is himself a bona fide war hero.
Yet the Clark affair did reveal something important — not about General Clark, but about Mr. McCain. Now we know what a McCain administration would represent: namely, a third term for Karl Rove.
It was predictable that the McCain campaign would go wild over the Clark remarks. Mr. McCain’s run for the White House has always been based on persona rather than policy: he doesn’t have ideas that voters agree with, but he does have an inspiring life story — which, contrary to the myth of the modest maverick, he talks about all the time. The suggestion that this life story isn’t relevant to his quest for office was bound to provoke a violent reaction.
But the McCain campaign went beyond condemning General Clark’s remarks; it went out of its way to distort them. “This backhanded slap against John as not being a worthy warrior because he just got shot down is one of the more surprising insults in my military history,” said retired Col. Bud Day, who participated in a conference call organized by the campaign. In fact, General Clark had said no such thing.
The irony, not lost on Democrats, is that Col. Day himself has done what he falsely accused Wesley Clark of doing: he appeared in the 2004 Swift boat ads that impugned John Kerry’s wartime service.
The willingness of the McCain campaign to engage in these tactics, employing such tainted spokesmen, tells us that the campaign has decided to go negative — specifically, to apply the strategy Karl Rove used so effectively in 2002 and 2004 (but not so effectively in 2006), that of portraying Democrats as unpatriotic.
And sure enough, Adam Nagourney of The New York Times reports signs of the “increasing influence of veterans of Mr. Rove’s shop in the McCain operation.”
Will Rovian tactics work this year?
In 2002 and 2004, Republicans were so successful at playing the patriotism card thanks to a combination of compliant media and cowering Democrats. At first, the Clark affair suggested that nothing has changed. News organizations reported as fact the false assertion that General Clark criticized Mr. McCain’s military service, and the Obama campaign rushed to “reject” his remarks.
“Two days into the Wesley Clark fallout,” wrote the Columbia Journalism Review on Tuesday morning, “the press, the G.O.P., and the Obama campaign all seem to have agreed that Clark’s recent remarks on John McCain’s service record were at best impolitic and at worst despicable.”
Since then, however, both the press and the Obama campaign seem to have recovered some of their balance. Opinion pieces have started to appear pointing out that General Clark didn’t say what he’s accused of saying. Mr. Obama has also declared that General Clark doesn’t owe Mr. McCain an apology for his “inartful” remarks and denies that his own condemnation, in a speech given on Monday, of those who “devalue” military service was aimed at the general.
In the end, the Clark affair may have strengthened the Obama campaign. Last week, with his cave-in on wiretapping, Mr. Obama was showing disturbing signs of falling into the usual Democratic cringe on national security. This may have been the week he rediscovered the virtues of standing tall.
Furthermore, my sense, though it’s hard to prove, is that the press is feeling a bit ashamed about the way it piled on General Clark. If so, news organizations may think twice before buying into the next fake scandal.
If so, the campaign has just taken a major turn in Mr. Obama’s favor. After all, if this campaign isn’t dominated by faux outrage over fake scandals, it will have to be about things that really did happen, like a failed economic policy and a disastrous war — both of which Mr. McCain promises will continue if he wins.
I meant if you're reading "this blog", which was probably silly on my part, because I think you read everything in CCN and all the yahoo groups. God bless your eyes.
"Last week, with his cave-in on wiretapping, Mr. Obama was showing disturbing signs of falling into the usual Democratic cringe on national security. This may have been the week he rediscovered the virtues of standing tall"
I really don't see how team Obama has rediscovered the virtues of standing tall while crawling under a rock and being afraid of defending Wes Clark
"Will Rovian tactics work this year?"
Of course they will as long of Democrats crumple at the first hint of criticism and refuse to defend their own against propoganda spewed by the MSM.
he just phrased the sentence, "They found out they're going to get the shit kicked out of them if they don't stand tall" in a positive way.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
They found out they were going to get the LIVING sh$t kicked out of them if they didn't stand tall.
Ron Esquerra
Alger County Democratic Party
Upper Peninsula Veterans Coordinator-
www.michigan4clark.com
or are you one of those people who can't accept Hillary's loss?
Barack said Wes had nothing to apologize for. Good enough?
Watch this.
Obama didn't lead; he reacted. And poorly at that.
So, no, it's not "good enough." Where is Obama's statement supporting General Clark's service to his country? He left out that little detail in his praise for McCain's service.
He could have accomplished both and owned this issue, but he took the course of lease resistance--or so he thought.
Why must Obama supporters make everything about Hillary? This issue is not about who won the primary. It's about the utter failure to support General Clark who dared to address the sacred cow of McCain's narrative.
He said why are we talking about this and went on and on, then said I don't think that what Wes Clark said is keeping Ohioans up at night. He never said Wes had nothing to apologize for, ever. If you have a transcript or video where he said that you should post it, but save your time -- it doesn't exist.
and despite your opinion that we can't accept Hillary's loss, it goes way beyond that. The fact you can't see it is really baffling to us. There's a whole lot we can't accept with the way the Dem Party leadership ran this primary, treated a Democrat, and changed the rulz when it looked like Obama may not win the nomination, to ensure he did. It was fixed from the beginning and no, we're not going to get over it.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
OK, here's another. Obama was asked point blank if he thought Clark should apologize. He refused to take the bait and say yes. Wouldn't any logical, objective person realize that he doesn't think Clark needs to apologize?
Instead of this circular firing squad the Republicans are arranging us into, why don't we challenge the McCain people about whether they think being shot down and tortured IS a qualification for president. Then we could get them to shoot President Bush down and torture him so he'll be qualified before he leaves office. N.B. I'm not calling for the assassination of the president (that would be a crime) but if being shot down and tortured and held prisoner for years qualifies McCain to be president, they should do it to Bush.
If we play this right, and if it lasts long enough, it could actually wind up being good for General Clark. The more people look at what he said, instead of what Faux News wants people to think he said (thank something for YouTube) the better Clark looks.
Get over the primary battles. Mission critical now is defeating John McCain. Do you want that hair trigger temper and out of control ego, the one we see more and more of in this campaign, with its finger on the nuclear button, or would you rather have the preternaturally unflappable and cool Mr. Obama? I think that's a no brainer, despite my appreciation of Obama's flaws and the fact that I'd rather have had someone else become the Democratic nominee.
Obama threw Clark under the bus. Plain and simple. He can rot in hell for all I care.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
Clark inartfully took himself out of the Veepstakes. I'd be mad at him, but I love him for his impolitically correct self. Obama did the best that he, as a politician, could do to keep from disavowing or attacking Clark. The only way I can see to dig out of this is to make sure it percolates in the media to the point where people see that Clark didn't say anything but the simple truth, and a backlash forces him back into the Veepstakes. But Obama has refused to attack Clark or even suggest that he needs to apologize, no matter how much trouble that gives him with uninformed swing voters. That's the best anyone could reasonably expect in this circumstance.
Obama doesn't even have the guts to attack Clark
himself. Instead he sent his surrogates out to
do it. If you have read the thread here
entitled "Video: Linda Douglas of the Obama
Campaign Threw Clark Under the Bus," and you
are still holding these positions, namely that
Obama "refused to attack Clark," or "said he
didn't have to apologise," then you are indeed
refusing to see reality, unfortunately a common
trait of rabid Obama supporters.
By the way the "Catherine" (cgrunden) referred
to is the full time Executive Director of
WesPAC, based in Little Rock, and Wes's close
associate. When she says something regarding
General Clark, it is authorized by him, and
therefore indicative of his point of view.
You can keep saying the same things over and
over if you like, but they still will be lies.
As for the "veepstakes," that was, in my opinion,
the very reason for Obama's disavowing and
disagreeing with Wes. So that he wouldn't have
to consider him. I, for one, am extremely glad
that Wes will have no further involvement with
Obama.
Look, I was neutral during the primaries. When Clinton went negative I was inclined against her (I really don't like that kind of campaign) but out of respect for Clark I kept neutral.
Please stop accusing me of lying. You need to change gears from the primary campaign. I never expected to see this blind hatred for Obama when I came back here after the primaries (and after I got more time to be on the Internet again).
You're also veering close to conspiracy theories with some of these speculations you've got here. It's best to remember that the simplest possible explanations are most likely to be true.
CLARK DID NO SUCH THING!!! STOP PERPETUATING RIGHT WING SOUNDBITES FROM WES'S OWN SITE. UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE.
GO AWAY, GO AWAY, GO AWAY. OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
Did you even listen to what Wes said? Let me explain it to you again because apparently you are not paying attention.
What Wes said was what he's BEEN saying all along and Obama was cozying up to him up until the right wing nutjob swiftboaters took one sentence out of several paragraphs and twisted into something he didn't say. They may as well have taken one word out of each sentence and pasted it together into a quote that said McCain was Hitler--it would have been the journalistic equivalent.
Instead of standing by Wes or just keeping his fucking mouth shut, Obama bent over backwards and spinelessly disowned Wes.
If you refuse to see that, you really don't belong calling yourself a Clark supporter any more. Sorry. You just don't. Good bye. You are the weakest link.
I've never said that before. When Wes supported Hillary and others couldn't follow him there, I NEVER said they weren't good Clarkies. When Clark endorsed Obama and others couldn't follow him there, I NEVER said they weren't good Clarkies. But when our General is getting shit all over by Obama, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the media for a mistake HE NEVER MADE--something that NEVER happened except in the minds of the swiftboaters--if you can't support him then, then you are not a Clarkie. Go play in someone else's sandbox.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
even played it for other people. It was NOT "artful" to quote a setup line being fed you by a friend of Bush. It was not politic. Stop calling me a liar because you can't see that politics is played by the media's soundbite rules.
I don't like it, but I don't like a lot of things I have to live with.
...when he answered the question that was asked. You want him to be an "artful" spinner. BS. That is not Wes Clark. Live with that.
That's why I love him. Read my blog. I want the media to stop attacking him for it (sign the Moveon.org petition)
But I've been around long enough not to expect it to happen.
He has higher expectations than some of us when it comes to political candidates, but he's not the 'enemy'.
Wes did not say or do anything wrong and acting like he did is a real problem for me.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
This little brouhaha will not survive this weekend...unless we perpetuate it, which would be a bad idea. It's a closed chapter. Put that book away and let it gather dust. To keep dragging this out would be a disservice to Gen. Clark.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
will go down in INFAMY in my book.
General Clark wrote the book on Securing America. Literally.
That's like calling the 2000 & 2004 vote count & subsequent rightwing coups "shenanigans."
The impetus is on the O! campaign to build bridges.
the question. And that is the more likely, logical, conclusion. And that smacks of total cowardice.
Sorry Dan.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
Catherine made it quite clear that Obama dissed Wes.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15996#comment-314095
So, no, Obama's half ass non-denial denial two days later is not good enough.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
Evidence:
1) Obama communications director 'rejecting' comments of Wes
2) Obama himself calling comments 'inartful' and generally failing to defend Wes since he says he has better things to do other than talk about qualifications for national security
No, not good enough.
I totally accept Hillary's loss, but also have confirmation the last few days that I backed the right candidate
There seems to be no debate about that.
Also I agree with Obama that Clark has nothing to apologize for, so there is nothing to defend. Unfortunately we have another example of how the General doesn't speak soundbite. That's one reason I love him, but also a reason he'll probably never make it to a major party ticket. Unfortunately for our country.
Some people here seem to have developed more hatred of Obama than love for Wes Clark.
to show strength and leadership. If he came out strongly in defense of the General, the media would have been forced to go beyond the clipped soundbite. Obama would have looked like he had real stones while standing up for a highly decorated war hero, and he could still continue to honor John McCain's service as well.
The Democratic party would have been able to speak from a position of strength on national security, instead of ceeding national security to the GOP as they've done for the past 40 years.
As it stands, Obama came out looking wishy-washy,General Clark looks like a Lone Ranger since no one's backing him up, and the Democratic Party looks like they're afraid to touch McCain's record or challenge him on military issues.
...to say that lots of people are defending Clark. VoteVets and Klugman for starters. I'm thinking you really have been camping in the woods if you don't know that.
but not Pelosi, not Reid, and certainly not Obama. In short, none of the Democratic leadership.
Bloggers, other military, and people in general are defending him now because they see how absurd this whole "controversy" is. But the Democratic leadership looks timid and afraid.
" VoteVets and Klugman...
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
Gen. Omar Bradley
Which is why Obama CAN'T win. So any argument that we should support the jerk because McCain is worse is pointless. He's done. Supporting him is like sticking your finger in the dike. Better to expend effort preparing for the flood. Focus on the House.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
Which is why Obama CAN'T win.
If George W Bush can end up in the White House, one can never dismiss the possibility of ANYONE getting in once they become a nominee. Never underestimate the power of media lapdogs.
And I still think McCain is worse, if for no other reason than he represents support/validation of Bush's policies.
His comments weren't inartful. Or, if they were, Obama shoudl have said something LONG ago. Wes has been saying the same thing for weeks if not months and until the swiftboaters went after Wes for it, Obama was perfectly happy with it. It wasn't until it became politically difficult for Obama that he threw Wes under the bus.
It seems some people have developed more love for Obama than love for Wes.
Pay attention.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
I do love this country and I do believe McCain will be the worst mistake since GWB.
I don't agree with Obama on all issues and I never agreed with Clinton's positions on all issues and there were a couple that I disagreed with Wes (flag-burning, for instance).
I will still be voting for Obama -- and that's coming from an Independent.
If you want to support the lower races, that's fine -- let's have some good posts about local candidates.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
I thought the comments were ARTFUL. I thought they were brilliant. When I first watched it I was excited and glad for the knockout punch it could have been to the McCain campaign if only Obama had handled this the right way.
Click this instead.
And if he is a leader, he should also control the message coming from his communications director who was the first from the Obama camp to slap General Clark.
Six One Degrees of Separation
Thinking cap, please.
snip
Austin, Texas and grew up in Fort Worth, Texas. He is an alumnus of North Side High School, Texas Christian University and of the Phi Delta Theta fraternity. The journalism school at TCU was later named after him. After graduating, he served in the U.S. Air Force as a captain and information officer. He was honorably discharged and joined the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as a reporter, with one of his key assignments a trip to Vietnam to profile soldiers from the Fort Worth area. At the Star Telegram he also covered the JFK Assassination. He then joined WBAP in Dallas before taking a job with CBS in 1969.
In 2004, he was the moderator of the third presidential debate between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry.
snip
In the wake of Dan Rather's controversial retirement, he was named interim anchor for the weekday CBS Evening News. He assumed that job on March 10, 2005, the day following Rather's last broadcast. Under Schieffer, the CBS Evening News reversed some of the decline in ratings during Rather's tenure, gaining about 200,000 viewers, although remaining in third place. Some of this was attributed to the Schieffer family's closeness with President George W. Bush;
Schieffer is the older brother of Tom Schieffer, a friend and former business partner of President George W. Bush, who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Australia 2001-2005 by President Bush and as of November, 2005 is currently the U.S. Ambassador to Japan.
Schieffer is married to the former Patricia Penrose Bishop and has two daughters.
Current Status
In his most recent memoir, Schieffer credits the fact he has been a beat reporter at CBS for his longevity at the network. In This Just In, Schieffer noted a rare off-camera appearance in the comics. After fellow CBS newscaster and Texan Dan Rather was switched from the White House beat to hosting the documentary show CBS Reports in 1974, the Doonesbury comic strip featured a joking fantasy scene in which Schieffer, his successor, haltingly comments on the transition: "It was the affiliates – they just couldn't take him. I mean let's face it, Dan wasn't exactly MR. TACT!. I dunno...Maybe it's just as well in the long run, I mean, you know? Anyway, this is Robert Schieffer at the White House..."
did have something to do with this, then. Schieffer can't stand to have a flyboy dissed, while the grunts on the ground think that they aren't really fighting up there. If McCain gets shot down, and suffers, he can be a hero even to the army, but he still doesn't know what combat is like.
I'm trying to remember which columnist made these points so I can link it. Anybody remember?
Maybe to the casual observer. But blood is thicker than water, and money is the thickest binder of all.
I know what his reputation is, but his trivialization of the issue to some sort of inter-service rivalry was ridiculous.
Unless you believe Wes Clark does "petty".
Wes had nothing to apologize for.
One might infer such, to have been what he meant, but he sure didn't say it, and asserting that he did is continuing with the rovian misquotes and mischaracterizations.
...as did his official representatives. No getting around that. Likewise, nowhere did he or his representatives mention Clark's stellar service to his county although they all gushed about McCain's service. Hmmmm. Talk about Rovian.
For Obama to idolize. Not a Democrat among his
heroes and role models. This has been the case
his whole campaign. And people are suprised
that he's seeming more and more like--wait for
it--a Republican.
when she said McCain and she had crossed the threshold meeting CinC requirements, implying Obama had not. Since I sent donations to her campaign, they sent an email back asking for feedback at one point. I told them it was unseemly to praise the GOP nominee while minimizing a fellow Democrat.
I would say the same thing to Obama's campaign. His diminution of President Clinton's administration and subsequent (mis)handling of Gen Clark, while praising the Reagan administration and now McCain, is a big mistake. That's not a move to the center, that's a move towards disrespect and disloyalty when he fails to acknowledge the accomplishments of Clinton and Clark.
It's shameful that the elected Democrats are silent on Wes' statement and the shredding he's taken from media and GOP. I propose we keep a list of those who have backed him, and when they spoke out. This includes those who have dissed him or discarded him.
I'll check those lists when it comes time to support a candidate.
Wes Clark. He has never dissed another Democrat.
It would be relatively easy to keep a lost of those who defended Wes. Through deafening silence, though, the other list would include every other Democrat in the country.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
is very short. I can't see any with spine to come to his defense in the near future on this. Their attention span is too short and the damage has been done. I'm sure they've all moved on.........
Funny thing, General Clark was among the most requested Democratic surrogates during the last election cycle. So, where are those he helped in their campaigns? I'm sure he spoke stronger then this during their appearances together. I must stop trying to be logical. When it comes to ignorance, one just can't explain it.
is that (partisan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Schieffer) Bob Shieffer’s question to Wes
“Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --
Clark: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Schieffer: Really? “
was worded to elicit a provocative sound bite that could be quickly (it was on the internet in minutes saying Wes had “attacked” McCain) to demean Wes and hurt Obama. Being an experienced journalist Bob oboviously knew Wes replies to questions with a concise answer, so repeating Bob’s question word for word as he answered is not unheard of. Unless you were being sarcastic, who would call piloting a fighter “riding in”? Or say an airline pilot was riding in an airliner? - so I believe Bob chose the words deliberately.
The resulting furor appears to be a typical Rovian well planned smear we are all too familiar with. How disappointing that MSM, pundits, most columnists, and members of the chattering class have prostituted themselvels to such a disgusting degree. When ‘Morning Joe crew was insulting Wes the other morning and giggling about it did you notice Jack Welch sitting at the head of the table to make sure no one went off the reservation and said something they shouldn’t?
It is heartening that the more objective and honest among writers (Krugman, Conason, Walsh, etc) have come out to defend Wes, and disgusting that more leading Democraats have not.
And Obama and his team fell right in line.
I want a LEADER!
Why can't Obama supporters see that if he had vigorously supported General Clark, he could have owned the issue and stopped the narrative about McCain's POW status giving him chops for POTUS.
General Clark tossed him a gift and he ran away instead of taking the ball and running with it.
The only solace I have is that I won't have to vote the top of the ticket because I live in a very red state where there is zero doubt that McCain will win.
but I'm looking for acknowledgment that Wes gave Dems best talking point against mcC: he isn't what he's perceived to be.
Paul's point is right on and a Happy Fourth of July present. Now that my choices in this order(Clark, then Richardson, then Clinton) are all gone, as much as I'm disappointed for so many reasons in Obama and his campaign, at this point, I know I have to hold my nose and vote for him, if only to help the Democratic Party in general and block a worse choice from winning the White House.
Btw, Stan, if you're reading, Hi!, back atcha. ;P