Echoes of War

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 2, 2008 9:28 AM

It is, I suppose, the curse of the baby boomers: Every presidential campaign is ultimately about Vietnam.

How can it be, in 2008, that we're still arguing about a war that started in the Johnson administration?

In 1976, it was Jimmy Carter's amnesty proposal for draft dodgers. In 1980, it was Ronald Reagan promising to restore America's military and morale. In 1988, it was Dan Quayle avoiding Vietnam by joining the National Guard. In 1992, it was whether Bill Clinton had ducked the draft. In 2000, it was whether George W. Bush had evaded combat by joining the National Guard and then going AWOL. In 2004, it was the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry's service.

And now Wes Clark attacking the only POW to become a major-party nominee for president.

On one level, this is about the cultural divide rooted in the sixties, whether you served or didn't serve, whether you supported ROTC and the military or were a long-haired protester marching against America's role in the conflict.

But it also represents the morphing of attack politics into all-out warfare. If you avoided Vietnam, you're painted as a questionable commander in chief. If you served in Vietnam, even won medals for bravery as Kerry did, your record comes under fire. Al Gore, a senator's son, enlisted and served five months there as an information specialist, and yet was criticized for saying he took risks and was shot at. And now John McCain, who was shot down and subsequently tortured over 5 1/2 years, is finding his record under fire as well.

And since McCain used one of the Swift Boaters to defend his honor in a conference call, we get to argue about that episode all over again.

It's not that anyone who suited up in Vietnam should be above criticism, or automatically assumed to be presidential timber. I would simply ask this: Do Americans worried about their jobs, mortgages and gas prices really care as much as the pundit class about what McCain did 35 years ago?

The second-day debate is still going strong, with Clark making the rounds from "Good Morning America" to CNN to MSNBC. Andrew Sullivan lobs this grenade:

"Wesley Clark is now and always has been a Clinton-type, but this is pretty revolting. This kind of personal attack was repulsive coming against Kerry from the far right. And it's repulsive the other way round. Both Kerry and McCain served their country honorably; and their records should be revered, period. You can make an argument against McCain's foreign policy experience and judgment on its merits. Do it and leave this crap out of it."

But Josh Marshall blames the MSM:

"It's not surprising. But it is an example of the fatuous McCain worship that is the bread and butter of the Washington press corps that Wes Clark's comments this weekend on Face the Nation are being called 'swift-boating'. It's almost comical, but not much less than Bob Schieffer's incredulous responses to the fact that Clark had the temerity to argue that McCain's experience as a Navy pilot and a POW don't necessarily mean he'd be a good president."

I agree this wasn't Swift-boating, which is shorthand for inaccurate charges. But why is criticism of someone who attacked McCain in a way that Barack Obama himself disavowed equated with swooning over McCain? Doesn't seem to me that McCain's coverage lately has been all that positive.

Columbia Journalism Review's Zachary Roth also faults the media:

"ABC News political director Rick Klein led the outrage, writing in a blog post on ABCNews.com:

" Find me a single Democrat who thinks it's good politics to call into question the military credentials of a man who spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war.

"This is the perfect embodiment of the press's unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark's comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof--which is how the news media should be evaluating them."

He's got plenty of other examples. But politics is often about tone. You could say "McCain is an utter disgrace who got into bed with a crooked banker" and it would be true. It would also be smacking him for a 20-year-old scandal in which he's admitted he behaved badly. (I'm sure the Keating Five will come up, and it's fair game.)

Obama, on his values tour, wants to get into the faith-based business.

Another Obama flip? Obama opposes an initiative to overturn California's gay-marriage ruling, says the Sacramento Bee:

"In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending 'fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,' Obama wrote."

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey argues there is a pattern:

"Barack Obama has reversed himself yet again, but this time he has done a double backflip with a half-twist to the Left. After previously saying he opposed gay marriage and that he respected the rights of states to set conditions for marriage, Obama has now said that he opposes California's initiative to ban gay marriage -- and that he would use federal law to end such efforts . . .

"Once again, voters have to ask themselves what Obama is thinking. I'm no big fan of the gay-marriage ban, but we're getting past the point of the issues themselves and what all of these reversals mean about the candidate."

The polls continue to bounce around: CNN has Obama leading50-45, what it calls a statistical dead heat. A warning sign: One-quarter say Obama lacks patriotism.

National Review's Byron York offers a valid criticism of a Washington Post piece:

"In a story reporting that Obama 'fiercely' defended his patriotism in his Independence, Missouri speech yesterday, Washington Post reporters Jonathan Weisman and Michael Shear write:

"[Obama] has repeatedly been forced to address false rumors that he will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance, place his hand over his heart during the national anthem or wear an American-flag pin on his lapel. He wore a flag pin for Monday's speech.

"I keep seeing the flag-pin issue included among the alleged falsehoods about Obama. But didn't he, in fact, actively refuse to wear a flag pin? And didn't he have a specific reason for not doing it? Like this:

" The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism.

"Later, without much explanation, Obama decided to wear the pin and claimed that he had never really been against it. But is it accurate to include the flag-pin issue among the 'false rumors' about Obama without saying what actually happened?"

York's right. It's Obama who created the issue.

Among those kicking The Post around is the Findlay, Ohio, Courier:

"The Washington Post did a hit job on Findlay in its Monday edition. The story, 'In Flag City USA, False Obama Rumors Are Flying,' holds up this city and in particular, a few older residents of College Street, as prototypes of the sort of ultra-conservative, racist ignorance that Sen. Barack Obama is sadly forced to battle in his quest for the White House. The Post article by Eli Saslow shows the local people he interviewed as white, working-class, flag-waving patriotic, xenophobic -- and utterly opposed to change."

I didn't see it that way at all. The town's mayor was quoted as saying folks there are resistant to change. And it turns out the paper has its own skepticism about Obama's Christianity: "We do seriously question the judgment and motives of a man who over a 20-year period listened on at least some occasions to the hate-filled and racist black liberation theology voiced by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger and others."

Markos has decided not to give Obama a $2,300 contribution:

"Ultimately, he's currently saying that he doesn't need people like me to win this thing, and he's right. He doesn't. If they've got polling or whatnot that says that this is his best path to victory, so much the better. I want him to win big. But when the Obama campaign makes those calculations, they have to realize that they're going to necessarily lose some intensity of support. It's not all upside. And for me, that is reflected in a lack of interest in making that contribution."

Caroline Kennedy, you may recall, is one of Obama's veep-vetters. And the New Republic's Michelle Cottle says the gig could help her:

"Critics may deride Kennedy Schlossberg as an unqualified and twitty political dilettante, but it doesn't take a strategy expert to grasp why Obama has carved out such a prominent role for her. She is a Kennedy. She is a woman. Better still, up to this point she has largely steered clear of the unseemly business of electoral politics. Instead, she has nurtured the family legacy by quietly tending the memories of others: first dad, then mom, and even brother John. In a family full of paparazzi magnets, self-promoters, and aspiring political stars, Kennedy Schlossberg has long glowed softly in the minds of many as the Great Custodian--an eternally gracious, dignified, selfless link to a purer, more buoyant political age.

"But this alliance may be an even shrewder move for Kennedy Schlossberg than for Obama. It's been 45 years since the fall of Camelot, and the family brand has begun to fade. A growing portion of the electorate was born after the deaths of John and Bobby and has a tough time relating to the Kennedy fixation of its elders. Under such conditions, what's a committed custodian of the family legacy to do? Hitch her clan's wagon to the hottest political star in decades. With a little luck, even as that old Camelot magic rubs off on Obama, the candidate's energy and relevance will help sustain the Kennedy brand for a little longer. If that means Kennedy Schlossberg must surrender her cherished privacy to suffer through unflattering media cycles and self-conscious stump speeches (memo to the campaign: urge her not to try a fist pump again--ever), then so be it. For JFK's daughter, preserving the family legacy has always come first. And, as the last few months have shown, she's pretty darn good at it--or, at least, better than her reputation as a political naif would suggest."

If talking about McCain getting shot down is touchy, what about his septuagenarian status? Myrna Blyth unloads on a NYT piece by Charles Blow:

"The Times has published Blow's seemingly acceptable op-ed, which sneers at McCain's 'joshing grandpa shtick' and compares McCain's 'wispy comb-over,' 'stilted grin,' and 'blank expressions' to those of the 'cover boy' the 'camera loves.'

"Oh, maybe there's more to this than ageism. Maybe Blow is trying to contend with Maureen Dowd for this month's New York Times Let's Make Fun of Anyone But Obama Award . . .

"So let's call the hand-wringing about McCain's age from now on exactly what it is: the ugly, uninformed prejudice of ageism that should go the way of other ill-informed prejudices. Especially at a time when economists say people will have to work longer to sustain themselves for the many years of life they will probably enjoy -- when older Americans volunteer to work longer and harder to give us the benefit of their experience, we should not criticize their inclination. Rather, we should applaud it."

The veepstakes is becoming a full-time media preoccupation. At Politico, Mike Allen has the latest:

"In a surprise to many Republican insiders, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is at the top of the vice presidential prospect list for John McCain. But lack of personal chemistry could derail the pick. 'Romney as favorite' is the hot buzz in Republican circles, and top party advisers said the case is compelling."

Top of the list? How did he get the list? Or is the list just metaphorical? But such posts feed the beast, with Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum seeing Romney as a good choice:

"Like most liberals, I think this is a great idea because it would provide lots of good material for future blog mockery. Still, that's just a personal insta-reaction, and I wouldn't be too quick to write this off as a dumb move. Yes, there's the whole Mormon/evangelical thing, and God knows McCain doesn't need even more problems with the evangelical community. But Romney helps him with conservatives, helps him with fundraising, is unlikely to make any serious gaffes, and can hold his own in a debate. Personal chemistry aside, he might be a fairly shrewd choice."

The WSJ's Gerald Seib examines Joe Biden and seems more animated about Al Gore:

"Mr. Gore would be a more startling choice. Since his own unsuccessful run for the presidency, of course, Mr. Gore has become a kind of international rock star on the subject of climate change. Picking a man who isn't just a former vice president, but also the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize, would be audacious.

"But there's no doubt that Mr. Gore knows the world, and the world knows him. In a year of maximum opportunity for their party, some Democrats think Obama-Gore would be the optimum ticket.

"The idea raises some sticky questions. First is whether there is any chance Mr. Gore would even be interested. If he were, would he overshadow the nominee? How would all those working-class voters in the industrial Midwestern states, already a problem for Sen. Obama, react to what Republicans would surely call Mr. Gore's industry-strangling ideas on global warming?"

Why should an inconvenient truth like Gore's lack of interest spoil the game?

And finally, the Washington Times says there's about to be more Obama coverage than ever:

"Get ready for a round-the-clock Obamarama.

"The media-savvy Democrat had ducked the 24/7 press coverage that other presidential candidates have endured for months, but no more. As of Saturday, every breath he takes, every move he makes will be scrutinized and recorded for posterity, often with a biting wit.

"Now orbiting Sen. Barack Obama is the gaggle of reporters known as a 'protective pool' -- although newshounds who cover presidents have dubbed the duty 'body watch.' While the debut Obama dispatch opened with the ominously boring words 'no news, no color,' subsequent filings have included some color, such as 'Michelle . . . looks slammin' in a black cocktail dress with a severe slit down the back.' "