Could it be that the real reason was that he spoke the truth? Nothing in McCain's military experience gives him any preparation for service as CIC, other than knowing how to salute. (Bill Clinton had to learn that, late.) The failure of a straight forward, honest and true statement by General Clark results not from anything about his statement but from game-playing media types who want to spin because that's what they get paid--too well, I think--to do.

Why not write something about the basic truth of what Clark said? Not sophisticated enough? This whole hullabaloo results from "hero worship" by the press of Mr. McCain who did his duty but now seems to want to cash in on that forever, using his service as his personal flag-wrap throughout an otherwise undistinguished political career.

ditto to gfv6800.

To add Another Grunt viewpoint:

"Critics believe that the service's[USAF] leadership--dominated by career fighter pilots--had become arrogant and unresponsive, with little accountability for senior officers and civilian officials."(news article about Gates firing the SecAF and CoS, AF).

John McCain = arrogant, unresponsive Navy fighter pilot? Based on his reputed temper, his weird comments like Bomb,Bomb, Bomb Iran, his self admitted ignorance on economic policy, getting mixed up with Keating Five, and still posing as a maverick when his top campaign staff is/was composed of 59 lobbyists, Methinks McCain would be a terrible president, maybe not as bad a Bush II (hmm, another fighter jock, albeit not in combat), but still a bad executive.

Stereotypes exist for a reason..because they are often deserved. I was an infantry officer stationed in Germany 76-79 at a small post where an attack helicopter company was also based, so we interacted a lot with the chopper pilots, almost all of them with Vietnam experience. Great guys to party with, would want them supporting you in combat. Great managers/administrators? Not so much. Maybe thats why the Army makes almost all of its pilots warrant officers, rather than commissioned officers. They get to do what they really like-Fly, and after hours, party hard. Maybe the USAF might consider transitioning to that model. The RAF used the NCO/Flight officer model during WWII also. Using the Warrant Officer system still allows pilots to get the status and pay they deserve, without requiring them to work in administrative areas most are not interested in.

Another point: McCain was not going to go beyond Captain to admiral. His membership in the Annapolis Protective Society pretty much guranteed his ascent to O-6, Captain Level but his womenizing and so so leadership of the peacetime squadron he was given ensured that O-6 would be his ceiling

Also, he was never in the top rank of Naval Aviators. The true fighter pilots were selected to fly the F-4 Phantom or the F-8 Crusader. Then came the A-6 pilots, then the A-4. Pecking order continued with pilots of Antisub warfare and Radar planes, then Cargo planes, etc.

McCains A-4 was designed and used as a bomber, it was in fact the jet powered replacement for the A-1 Skyhawk.

McCain's personal life seems to epitomize the fighter jock mentality- hard partying, womanizing, kicking his first wife to the curb after her car wreck ruined her looks, and the young, millionaire trophy wife. I sure don't want another president not interested in the hard work needed to ride herd on the government bureaucracy. We already have the last 7 years of mismanagement as an example.

Again, as Clark also emphazied, all of the above does not negate McCains sacrifice as a POW and his service. We can honor a veterans service, but service does not equal leadership qualities.

The real question here and the question I haven't heard asked is, "What are the qualifications for being President?" If serving in the military and being a POW are not the right qualifications, what are the correct attributes? What skills? What's life experiences? Until you answer that question you can never truely rebut Clark's comments. Sadly, you will never hear this type of critical thinking in the media, blogs, or Slate.

i'll say it softly too.....right on.

I believe McCain's peacetime squadron received a Meritorious Unit Citation under his command. That would show a little bit more than so so leadership skills, as someone that served you know how easy it would be for a couple of disgruntled sailors to screw up unit efficiency insuring failed reviews for the old man. I've served in both kinds of units, ones receiving commendations and ones failing miserably, in both units it was directly traceable to how well the crew respected the CO.

I really don't know what these people want in a POTUS. It would seem that all they want is (a) A Democrat. (b) Younger than McCain, (c) Richer than McCain, (d) Promise some sort of "CHANGE" as your campaign slogan (it apparently makes no difference that this "CHANGE" is itself currently "CHANGING" on an almost daily basis). (e) Absolutely no military experience what so ever and no apparent idea how or why any branch of the armed forces works. (f) Last but certainly not least to at least some of the voters, the ability to post bragging rights of being the first African American POTUS in U.S. history (even if it is only half true).

it is apparent what at least some Democrats don't want and that is (a) Very much political experience. (b) Anyone who knows what he will be doing from the start as POTUS. (c) Anyone who just might have a real idea to get us out of Iraq and at the same time keep us relatively safe at the same time. (d) A seasoned political and military veteran as POTUS.

Just my ideas based on the posts I have read to date. It is apparent that if Obama changes his stand on issues it is ok. But if McCain does so he is lying. Funny how the reality actually has nothing to do with the truth, but is in the way it is perceived. I can't wait to see what the master illusionists, Obama, has up his sleeve next.