There was a perception in the media that 2008 presidential candidate John McCain was a leading expert on matters of foreign policy and military strategy.  A very different perspective suggesting otherwise, is found here:

But the media would not touch this idea, and instead continued promoting a high level of strategic foreign policy military wisdom on McCain’s behalf.

In part this was because McCain — prior to his radical transformation to the right in order to secure the increasingly right wing Republican Party nomination in 2008 — had been very friendly, open, and revelatory with the press for many years.  And it is in part because McCain, almost forty years ago, served for several years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

McCain’s service in Vietnam is both commendable, and heart wrenching.  Yet to point out the disconnect between the idea of having been a POW, and thus being a leading expert on matters of military and foreign policy strategy, was looked upon by the press as impugning McCain personally.

Of course this is ridiculous. But that is what was done.   In fact, when General Wesley Clark tried to make the point, using a phrase that CBS’ Bob Schieffer himself put forth, even he was excoriated by the media.

To get a handle on how lopsidedly loyal the media was to the legend of McCain’s expertise, consider Clark’s exceptional level of relevant expertise:

Clark graduated first in his class at West Point, earning a Rhodes Scholarship. He received his Master’s in military science from the U.S. Army Command and Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He spent over three decades in the army and department of defense, often as a military strategist. During the late 1990’s, he served as the European Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.  He’s been awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and numerous international awards. He commanded Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, where his record was exemplary, and not one American casualty was suffered.  He is a four star General.  He is the author of two books on winning modern wars.

This is who the media excoriated, for questioning McCain’s military strategy expertise by pointing out that McCain’s prior experiences have little to do with this.

Consider also, at minute :33 here,  the contempt and near incredulity, in Bob Schieffer’s voice at Clark with respect to what is a run of the mill political point by Clark.  Also note, at minute 1:53, where MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell rather brusquely states to Clark; “Obama has not had executive experience either, so why criticize McCain for something that your own candidate can’t claim to.”  HALF THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST OBAMA WAS THAT HE “DID NOT HAVE EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE.” And more importantly, The media itself often pointed this out. But when Clark and others attempted to make similar points about McCain, they were repeatedly questioned and criticized for it by that very same media.

Here, Clark explains his position on McCain:  Watch the video, and notice how the MSNBC host scrunches up her eyes, gets a very skeptical, highly questioning, almost contemptuous look on her face toward Clark, and says, with great emphasis, “this is John McCain we are talking about.”

“This is John McCain we are talking about.”

Of course, it did not help that the Democrats did not get Clark’s back on the issue of actually examining McCain’s expertise, as if he were a candidate running for high office, rather than an untouchable legend.  (But then, this is often a typical Democratic Party tendency — as many active Democrats, it seems, automatically assume that everybody else “knows” or thinks whatever they know, or perceive, and therefore a case does not have to be effectively made to the public at large. )

John Kerry himself, repeating the same type of mistake that his campaign made repeatedly in 2004, slammed shut the door that Wes Clark had opened.

In Kerry’s very slight defense, he probably did not know that it was Bob Schieffer who had brought up the pejorative sounding “jumping out of airplanes” line that Clark had then in turn used to suggest that it did not make one an ”expert” on foreign policy and military strategy matters.  But even then, Kerry’s response not only completely missed the huge gap in voter information on this critical issue, and the role that the media was playing in perpetuating this gap, but also itself served to perpetuate it: A role that Retired Lieutenant General Robert Gard, in defending Clark, called “ludicrous.”

The Obama campaign even issued a statement rejecting General Clark’s remarks, because when it came to John McCain, “straight talk” that was even marginally rough, was unacceptable.  At the same time, almost everything possibly bad and even outrageous about Obama had been stated, with almost all of it accepted by McCain until many Republican commentators finally began to express public unease at some of the “terrorists” type accusations being hurled at Obama, that were seemingly prompted by the carefully crafted word selections of McCain’s running mate.

It does not help that Democrats often take for granted what they perceive to be the case; and also are foolishly ”afraid” to take on what is perceived to be their opponents strengths (after “consultants” tell them it “won’t play well” — which it won’t when they constantly take on issues based off of their opponents’ own framing, and from a defensive posture).

But contrary to media assertions, it is really not the media’s job to rely upon Democrats in order for the media to be able to bring up the relevant facts. If they are mere stenographers — a term the media dislikes — then that would be the case. But being an independent fourth estate check — what our democracy needs in order to work properly  — and serving as a mere sounding board for what everyone is shouting, are two very different things.

Here’s an op-ed that did look at some of the objective record regarding McCain, and military strategy and foreign policy expertise.    Where did it appear?