The Relevance of Being Shot Down Bill Press 7/3/2008 It's only July, but already we know the rules of this year's presidential campaign. Actually, they're the same rules that apply every election: You can say anything you want about the Democratic candidate, but you have to treat the Republican candidate with kid gloves. In 2000, for example, you could accuse Al Gore of taking bribes from China, but you could not question George Bush's use of cocaine. In 2004, it was fine to smear John Kerry's war record, but forbidden to wonder why George Bush never showed up for National Guard duty. Here we go again. In 2008, it's OK to suggest, as conservative bloggers do daily, that Barack Obama is a gay, American-hating, chain-smoking Muslim. But not OK to suggest that just because John McCain was shot down and spent six years in the Hanoi Hilton does not, in itself, qualify him to be president. Unfortunately, Gen. Wesley Clark learned that lesson the hard way. Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Clark began by praising McCain's military service, calling him a "hero" for the courage he showed as a prisoner of war. However, Clark correctly pointed out, donning the uniform alone does not make the wearer presidential timber. In choosing a president, what's important is the judgment that a candidate has shown and his experience in making executive decisions. Host Bob Schieffer persisted. Didn't his being shot down give McCain an advantage over Obama? Whereupon General Clark gave his now-famous answer: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." Ironically, Clark didn't say anything John McCain hadn't already said himself. I've heard him, several times, entertain audiences with the same self-deprecating, joke: "It doesn't take a lot of talent to get shot down. I was able to intercept a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane." But for his comment, Clark was not only condemned by the McCain campaign, he was thrown under the bus by his own candidate. Why? Clark did nothing wrong. He merely told the truth. Yes, we honor every man and woman who wears the uniform. We especially honor those who are shot down and taken prisoner. But that doesn't mean they're all qualified to be president. Again, what counts is judgment. How much judgment did John McCain show when he suggested it would be OK for American forces to remain in Iraq another 100 years? When he opposed the latest version of the GI Bill? When he supported the CIA's continued use of waterboarding? When he condemned the Supreme Court's granting prisoners at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their confinement in civilian court "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country" Some former fighter pilots might have shown better judgment on those issues. This one did not. The way Gen. Clark was treated was unfair. But what's more unfair is the double standard applied to Democratic and Republican candidates. Why is John McCain's military service out of bounds in 2008, when it was considered perfectly fair to challenge John Kerry's war credentials in 2004, or Max Cleland's in 2002? And notice this big difference. In 2004, the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" didn't stop at Kerry's readiness to be president. They called him a phony. They questioned the very authenticity of Kerry's service in Vietnam and the medals he was awarded. They suggested he was somewhere else, and never wounded. It was all a pack of lies. Gen. Clark, by contrast, never challenged -- indeed, he praised -- McCain's service in Vietnam. He merely questioned its relevance to the Oval Office. Big difference. Clark's criticism is legitimate. The Swift Boat attacks were not. But this is not the only double standard we've seen regarding the Swift Boat veterans. To his credit, John McCain condemned their tactics in 2004. To his total discredit, he has embraced them in 2008. McCain has named Bud Day, one of the most vitriolic Swift Boaters against John Kerry, to his campaign "Truth Squad." And, according to USA Today, so far McCain has accepted almost $70,000 in campaign contributions from Swift Boat associates. Whatever moral outrage he felt toward them four years ago disappeared once he needed them as his own attack dogs.

And of course the Republican response would be, "If Obama can't take this kind of b.s. then he's not strong enough to be president."