Clark Misfires

"If Gen. Wesley Clark had vice presidential aspirations, they went out the window when he opened his mouth and removed any lingering doubt about his idiocy."

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says that Clark "has now made it clear that the Obama strategy is to demean and belittle McCain's military service -- and by extension, military service in general. This will undoubtedly play very well among Obama's nutcase fringe supporters as well as idiotic fired commanders of NATO, but that's a mighty thin list of voters."

On the left, Jon Soltz defends Wesley:

"I don't see what is so wrong about what General Clark said. And yet, immediately and unsurprisingly, the McCain campaign let loose with a response that expressed shock and dismay. Almost right after that, all of the media was up in arms about how 'wrong' this was. Pretty disappointingly, even progressive surrogates couldn't muster the strength to back up General Clark on TV.

"Why? This wasn't a swift boating, or any low politics. General Clark called McCain a hero to millions for his sacrifice."

Americablog's John Aravosis delivers what I consider a low blow:

"It's not 'nice' to ask the question, but it's actually a pretty good question. Yes, we all know that John McCain was captured and tortured in Vietnam (McCain won't let you forget). A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? It's not like McCain rose to the level of general or something. He's a vet. We get it. But simply being a vet, as laudable as it is, doesn't really tell you much about someone's qualifications for being commander in chief. If McCain is going to play the 'I was tortured' card every five minutes as a justification for electing him president, then he shouldn't throw a hissy fit any time any one asks to know more about his military experience."

First of all, McCain endured the torture--to the point that he can't raise his arms over his head today--rather than accept an offer of early release proffered because he was an admiral's son. I don't see how you criticize him for actions under torture. Second, far from throwing a hissy or any other kind of fit, McCain was restrained in his comments yesterday.

Time's Joe Klein challenges Clark on the facts, not the propriety:

"Clark is just plain wrong when he says that 'getting shot down' doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience. I think McCain's Vietnam war experience gives him important perspective on the horrors of war and should never, ever be discounted--even if McCain's more recent positions have been unduly bellicose. It's also just really bad manners on Clark's part, given the suffering McCain endured. I disagree with McCain's foreign policy positions in the middle east--you may have noticed--but he has traveled widely and, I believe, has worked hard to learn the rest of the world, especially the countries that spun out of the former Soviet Union."

Talking heads hit McCain for putting one of the Swift Boat attackers on a conference call to defend his Vietnam honor, and there's this:

"Republican John McCain, who four years ago condemned independent ads challenging Democrat John Kerry's military record, has accepted nearly $70,000 for his presidential campaign from the top donors of the group behind the attack ads and their relatives, a USA TODAY analysis shows."