Last time I looked, the White House was not located in a foxhole.

We can make no similar analysis of Obama, since he hasn't fought in any wars in his lifetime. But we have been given a glimpse at how Obama responds to external pressures and where he draws the line on loyalty and self-sacrifice. When it comes to family and friends, it seems Obama is first a survivalist.

As to Clark, he offered a fine point which was bound to get spun the wrong way in the media.  Not a politically smart thing to do to go in the direction of your opponent's greatest strength -- unless you can count on the corp media to not misrepresent the point and to help drive it home.

Last time I looked, the White House was not located in a foxhole. Which I sort of think was General Clark's point.

his point was that military experience, while certainly honorable, is not, in and of itself, a qualifier to be president.

Good question, whom would I rather share a foxhole.

I believe I'd have say Salma Hayek. ;-)

Here's her actual argument:

Let's concede that surviving torture doesn't necessarily endow one with presidential mettle. And, fine, being shot down doesn't qualify one to direct the executive branch.

But Clark misses the point of McCain's story.

McCain isn't a hero because he was tortured. He's a hero because he declined an offer by his captors to be released, refusing to leave his fellow Americans behind.

It may not take much effort to get shot down, but it must take a considerable act of will to consign oneself to more deprivation and torture. It must take a level of courage unknown to most to place concern for others above one's own interest.

Surely self-sacrifice, courage and loyalty figure somewhere in the calculus for selecting a president.

Given the volcanic eruption of temper and vitriol when a (non-derogatory) question about qualifications is raised, do you want someone who is prone to that sort of temper tantrum with his finger on the nucelar button?

Even if, as some might argue, it's not McCain personally erupting but rather his surrogates, one needs to remember that nuclear release is subject to the "two-man rule", i.e., the simultaneous authorization by two people (previously authorized to do this) is required for nuclear release.  McCain will be surrounding himself with personnel who will have been involved in his campaign (that's why you work on campaigns, after all) and, if (as their conduct has shown) they're prone to these sorts of eruptions, then it's as though McCain's temper will have insinuated itself through the whole of the government.  Particularly in the area of nuclear command, control, and release.

Back in the Cold War, McCain's temper would have disqualified him from even thinking about getting this close to the nomination - too unstable, the Party Elders would have deemed him.  The world is no less dangerous today.

I've been to the Hanoi Hilton, and I saw the cell where McCain was kept. (The Vietnamese, with an eye on the tourist dollar, have put up a shrine-like display of McCain's flight suit under glass). Anyway the place, trust me, is no joke. Spending five years there would change me, and I couldn't begin to guess how.

Do McCain's years as a POW in Vietnamese custody "qualify" him to be president? Of course not, that's as absurd a reduction of his human experience as labeling him "hero" or nutcase.

I believe that the riding and shooting down is NOT a qualification.  But, when you try to expand it further than that (which i think most observers did) then you are in trouble.  Because I think most voters would believe that McCain's military service is one of several presidential qualifications he has.

By bringing this up Clark brings Obama's qualifications  into question too.