Time Magazine Validates Placing Expediency over Principle

Predictably, the media reacted with the utmost angst and outrage over the comments of former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark when he sententiously suggested that John McCain's experience in Vietnam did not necessarily serve as a qualification for the Presidency. Yet again, when confronted with a legitimate statement from a political figure, the media rushed to place it in the most salacious, distorted context as possible, irrespective of the legitimacy or salience of the argument put forth.

For example, numerous sources took Clark's remarks entirely out of context, and insinuated that Clark had the temerity to question the patriotism of Sen. McCain (he didn't), while others absurdly caterwauled that Barack Obama must not only disavow Clark's remarks (which he indirectly did) but totally distance himself from the General. Discarding the absurdity of Obama breaking with Clark over the latter's making a legitimate argument, instead of a personal attack, the media also oddly propagated the notion that a candidate is responsible for what his surrogates say. If that was the case, where is the clamor for the removal of Charlie Black after he told Forbes magazine that a terrorist attack would be "good for my candidate." Unsurprisingly, the fervor extends only to the Democrat in this instance.

However, the most dispiriting, yet revealing argument that the media espoused in reaction to Clark's comments, as epitomized in a column by Time Magazine's Jay Newton-Small, was that McCain's record should remain unquestioned not because doing so raises nonsensical or illegitimate questions, but because it is not politically expedient.

In his piece, Newton-Small goes as far to acknowledge that pressing inquiries regarding the connection between McCain's POW experience and the relevant experience he thus gained from that excursion are entirely fair questions:

" The idea Clark was trying to communicate is that John McCain's honorable military service should be divorced and analyzed separately from his foreign policy record. Why? Because the first is unassailable, while the other is eminently flawed."

That said, he then argues that the aforementioned should be subverted solely in the interest of political expediency:

"But in minimizing the import of McCain's military service, Clark instead opened the door to the sort of criticism that Obama, who painstakingly praises McCain's military record at virtually every event, cannot afford. Cable-television talking heads feasted on the comments, with at least one partisan going so far as to accuse the Obama campaign of "swift-boating" McCain."

A compelling theory can be made that John McCain's experience as a fighter pilot, and then later as a POW does not automatically render him qualified to be the Commander in Chief. After all, the fact that, as a result of his imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton, McCain largely missed the critical decisions made on the ground during Vietnam, has been discussed ad hominem by prominent politicians like John Warner and Chuck Hagel.

Yet despite all of those mitigating factors, the essence of xxx's argument, that Barack Obama, and by extension, his campaign advisers should avoid any sort of issue which does not comport with what our political establishment views as "politically damaging" super cedes all other considerations.

It's difficult to understate how much of a disservice adopting that course of action regularly would do to the functioning of our political system. To date, Barack Obama has already adopted this mantra in the case of the FISA/warrantless wiretapping debate. In refusing to contest this patently illegal bill, Obama utilized the favorite rhetoric of the right in stating that he "wants our intelligence community to have all the resources at hand in this time of peril." It's widely believed that Obama utilized this line of rhetoric solely to inoculate himself from attack by the Republicans on questions of national security later on in this election cycle.

However, by adopting this nefarious media narrative which purportedly provided "political cover", a narrative which portends apocalyptic consequences if we don't allow the Bush Administration to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, and thereby trample on the Constitution, Barack Obama epitomized this media maxim, of expediency over principle, thoroughly.

Consequences to both the country, and his campaign quickly ensued. For the country, the pending bill in the Senate will eviscerate protections embedded in the Constitution, as well as codify a special tier of justice for large corporations, in which they are immune from prosecution for offenses that normal citizens are not. For the campaign, Obama has seen his political base incite a near revolt, and thereby casting him in an unfavorable light amongst the myriad of liberal grassroots supporters he had steadfastly cultivated, to great end, throughout the primary season. Only time will tell if Obama will learn the lessons of his faux pas, and thereby avoid the pitfalls of elevating whatever is opportune over what must be discussed, for the sake of the country.

Forgoing substantive questions in the name of avoiding "politically difficult" predicaments has been a hallmark of our media establishment throughout the election season. For some inexplicable reason, most media outlets deem the transient, largely trivial stories as superior to a thoughtful, lengthy discussion about the litany of issues plaguing our country. As a result, it is not surprising that TIME's Newton-Small would assert that Obama should neglect a serious question about McCain's qualifications for President. After all, their dominant creedo raises the minutiae of political discourse to the top of their newscasts, websites and panel discussions, to the utmost detriment of our country.

Thankfully, Barack Obama has showed incipient signs of refusing to conform to this deleterious media narrative. He refused to disown Clark, despite heavy pressure from the media, and of course, the righteously indignant McCain campaign. In doing so, Obama, for the first time since the primary season ended, decided to eschew the prevailing media notion that he must conform to media mandates. This is especially notable because of his recent decisions, including putting a flag pin on his lapel to abdicating his membership at Trinity Church of Christ, entirely aligned with whatever fervor the media may be preoccupied with.

Ultimately though, Obama owes all Americans, not just those who plan on supporting him, a candid dialectic about issues, from Iraq to the surging cost of health care, in this general election campaign. As evidenced by the McCain campaign's comic overreaction to Clark's comments, his campaign shall not be relied upon to participate in this discussion. As a result, Barack Obama must continue to obviate the media's pressure on him to succumb to preoccupation with valence issues e.g. Clark's remarks, or how he adorns his lapels on his suits.

This shouldn't be too hard. After all, in being the first African American presidential candidate for a major party in history, he has overcome greater obstacles than our media. Here's hoping he is up to the task.