Many in the media have cowed to McCain, suggesting that it's wrong to question how McCain's "experience" as a war hero qualifies him to be president.
Krugman says that what we're getting is Karl Rove's push for persona over policy. It's all about manipulation and phony scandals. Will Americans be manipulated again? Some will.
But I think we've reached the tipping point, where most of us know better. Remember, Rove brought us George Bush.
McCain has no policies, especially on economics. We need to question his experience, not just take it for granted that military service makes you a good president. I'd still like to hear McCain's strategy on "winning" the war. Why haven't the media pressed him on his plan? What does "winning" mean?
NYT: 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.
