I'm generally disgusted with the way the media covers the election campaign, but yesterday really irritated me.
Wesley Clark, on "Face the Nation," was asked about McCain's military service and made the argument that heroic military service does not substitute for executive command experience. In the course of the interview (
here's the clip) Bob Schieffer said that Obama hadn't flown a fighter plane and been shot down, to which Clark replied "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." That sound bite, out of context, has been aired again and again, and portrayed as an attack on McCain's military service.
Clark's point was that military experience does not equate to leadership. Two of our greatest presidents during wartime, Lincoln and FDR, didn't have any military experience to speak of, Lincoln having served in a volunteer militia company and fighting only mosquitos, as he put it, while Lincoln's best general, Grant, was a particularly inept president, with an administration rife with corruption. Reagan, who served in a WWII motion picture unit (an actor), performed very effectively as president.
Clark is attacking the McCain camp's assertion that his military service qualifies him to be president, not McCain's service itself, which Clark has repeatedly honored.
I must note that in his own previous presidential bid, Clark touted his own military experience, but he has also pointed out that in his overall command of US and NATO forces in Kosovo, he had to deal with strategic and diplomatic issues, not just ground troops. In 2004 Clark also touted John Kerry's service record; obviously, it's election year politics to a degree, but the Clark interview is not an attempt to demean McCain's service, but an attempt to point out that military service is not the same as leadership, judgement, etc.
(Gosh, if being a veteran qualifies someone to be president, I could run...)