Barack's Attack on American Values

The big story about Wes Clark's attack on John McCain's military service has gone undiscussed. Why did they do it? Why parade out a retired general to undermine the importance of military service and personal sacrifice for the greater good? What could the Obama campaign have been thinking to attack McCain's strength in a manner that so highlights Barack's weakness?

In the last quarter century, losing Democratic presidential nominees have found themselves on the short end of the patriotism argument with their Republican foes. The GOP has benefited from a stereotype in the voters’ mind that its candidates are tougher when it comes to defending U.S. national security.

There has been much discussion of Barack's desire to redefine the political map. The Obama folks apparently have a strong sense that the power of the media to change minds about fundamental American beliefs has been lacking but one element - a voice. Consider his speech on patriotism.

He doesn’t see patriotism as required to be measured in terms of military service or support for the troops. In his view, it can also be demonstrated both by opposing what he sees as a war wrongly fought, or teaching poor kids how to learn.

Has the country become so untethered from the principles upon which our beliefs are based that we can be easily moved to new outlooks - that we could view a 22 year old going to teach poor kids for a year an equivalent sacrifice to spending 5 years in a prisoner of war camp?

Sen. Obama, who didn’t serve in the military, was an early and outspoken critic of the Iraq War. He used that position in his fight for the Democratic nomination over Sen. Hillary Clinton, who had initially backed Bush on the war. In the eyes of many Democratic activists, that made him a purer, more genuine anti-war leader.

Barack believes that simply by having the boldness to face down a given of American politics, and to stick to his guns in the face of the flack that results, he can shift public opinion.

Sen. Obama sees “true patriotism” as “speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.” In other words, he argues that being a patriot sometimes means opposing the government’s policies even if U.S. troops are in combat at the time.

Traditionally, it is not acceptable in our country to attack a man who made great personal sacrifice to help defend it. Barack wants to change that, and to push the idea that a kid going to a protest is being as patriotic as one going to battle.

And, he sees patriotism and national service as something more, and often without any ties to the military. He argues his proposals for beefed-up funding for programs like the Peace Corp and Americorps show the same love of country as serving in the military.

When John Kerry "reported for duty" as he accepted the Democratic nomination, he was also accepting the premise that military experience was a good idea for someone who was going to lead the military - especially during a time of war. In the eyes of team Obama, that was his big mistake.

The philosophy of the Obama campaign is if there is a weak spot in perceptions of Barack, don't try to change Barack, change the premise.

Obviously, if Sen. Obama gets elected, being the first African-American to occupy the Oval Office, he will have redefined what Americans view as a president. But in order to get there, he’ll also have to sell the American people on his definition of patriotism first.

If you can take a country that strongly believes in self-sufficiency and teach it, in a generation, to be looking for handouts, then why can't a protester be as special as a soldier? That Dr. Evil level distortion of reality is what the patriotism speech was all about.