To those who campaign on the back of their military career

Here’s a curious interchange from yesterday’s debate.

Journo:At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that […] he’d like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a “deserter.”

Now, that’s a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn’t contradict him, and whether or not you think it would’ve been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.

Clark: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.

I don’t know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I’ve never looked at it. I’ve seen this charge bandied about a lot.

But to me it wasn’t material. […]

Journo: Let me ask you something you mentioned, then, because since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you’ve had a chance to look at the facts.

Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?

Clark: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that’s Michael Moore’s opinion. He’s entitled to say that. I’ve seen – he’s not the only person who’s said that. I’ve not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it’s not relevant to me and why I’m in this campaign.

First of all, if Clark hasn’t “followed up on those facts”, how does he know that Michael Moore isn’t the only one saying this?

Secondly, if Clark is at all serious about running on his military record - which appears to be the only thing he’s saying at the moment - then shouldn’t he and his campaign pay some attention to military issues?

For crying out loud:

• Wesley Clark was a four-star General in the US military.
• He says most of what he knows and has done are down to his life in the US military.
• He’s asking the US electorate to elect him President of the United States.
• He says that his military experience makes him more suitable to lead the country than the current President, George W. Bush.
• Michael Moore, introducing Clark at a campaign meeting, says that Bush was a deserter.
• When pressed on that, Clark says that isn’t an issue to him.

How can anyone say this with a straight face? How can the most militarily-inclined of all the Democratic candidates decide that such a full-frontal, no-holds-barred, brutal attack on Bush is somehow unimportant?

It just does not make sense.

Look: Michael Moore is a great film maker, a great director; anyone who has seen Bowling for Columbine, which won an Oscar for best documentary, knows that he is both skilled and, when he wants to be, shrewd. It’s worth noting that Bowling for Columbine, for all that it’s supposed to be a big huge liberal anti-gun screed, concludes that people having guns isn’t actually that important when it comes to gun deaths, and lays the blame mostly on the climate of insecurity and fear in the US and how people react to that.

But Michael Moore can also shoot from the hip occasionally; he’s useless as a stand-up comedian, as UK viewers of his last TV show will remember, and he’s not good on live TV when he doesn’t have time to marshall his thoughts. His skills are in analysing issues and editing footage; he’s not Dave Barry, and he shouldn’t pretend that he is.

That would be a decent defence. Why didn’t Clark use it?