Reply #10: I think it's a great argument, because it takes on McCain regarding his supposed strength [View All]

[Tom Rinaldo]

Any coherent argument that allows Democrats to point out to voters that McCain's military service, while honorable and heroic, was not of a sort that really qualifies him to be commander in chief is extremely valuable to press. Most Democrats sort of tip toe around McCain's P.O.W. years and never challenge a public assumption that McCain has a strong resume of executive leadership and military command. But he doesn't. Bravery is a wonderful quality but there are plenty of brave people who still show poor judgment, and being patriotic doesn't increase your analytical skills.

The public often assumes that McCain's military background bestows on him the mantle of seasoned leadership in National Security matters. Clark blunts that head on with this argument, and he is the man to deliver it since Clark got shot up in Viet Nam, was awarded medals for heroism, and came home on a stretcher himself. But he also commanded NATO. Clark can make this case without seeming disrespectful, and it is important that Democrats don't concede that McCain has an advantage over Obama in National Security.

Now if Clark ended up as Obama's running mate, the argument he is making here would be especially effective.