Some people just can’t get over how unfair it was to Obama to call Wesley Clark’s idiotic comments about John McCain’s service to his country an “attack.”

Someone over at the Columbia Journalism Review gets on his high horse:

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

No shit, Sherlock.

But what I want to know is why it’s so “crucially important” that we have a “sophisticated” political debate in this country.

Politics is not a debating society! It ain’t bean bag, either. It’s about power struggles!

Wesley Clark is an asshole, an Obama supporter, and he is trying to torpedo John McCain’s image by belittling his wartime experience. You bet it was an attack.

The other day, Stanley Fish mourned the passing of the primaries, because things have become unbearably dull on cable “news” [e.a.]:

From early February through the beginning of June, the lament one heard from the political pundits (echoing Cicero’s first oration against Catiline) went this way: How long shall we have to endure the ordeal of the Democratic primary? How long before we get to the real thing?

But now it turns out that the primary season – extended, it was said, beyond expectation or reason – was the real thing. And I say that because, at least to date, the current season – the season that was to bring a once-in-a-century contest between two men of different generations and clearly opposed ideologies – has been totally uninteresting. …

I cite in evidence the desperate efforts of cable-news commentators to fill out an hour or even 15 minutes arguing about whether Bill Clinton’s statement of support for Barack Obama was so brief and pro forma that it amounted to a slap in the face, or about whether Obama (or a staff member) was wise to banish women wearing head scarfs from photo-ops, or whether Michelle Obama came across as a regular – that is, all-American and not angry – person on “The View,” or whether John McCain could or should separate himself from George Bush.

Fish was amusing but wrong. The gossip that passes for commentary on cable “news” is the main event, not the sideshow. Look no further than this for evidence:

Clark Attack On McCain Upstages Obama Speech

The fallout from retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark’s Sunday comment that “riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down” is not “a qualification to be president,” dominated campaign coverage yesterday. In today’s coverage, Clark is widely seen as having hurt Sen. Barack Obama by seeming to belittle Sen. John McCain’s well known record of service in the Navy and his experience as a POW. Moreover, the controversy distracted media attention from Obama’s speech on patriotism.

The main event was supposed to be Obama’s big patriotism speech. It was kicked off the air—and along with it Obama’s carefuly crafted speech and carefully staged photo op in Independence, Missouri [get it? huh?]—by breaking gossip.

One pseudo-event was upstaged by some smart-alecks who dissect, parse, deconstruct, and beat it to death on television (for a handsome living).

That’s the inextricable link between American politics and the newsbiz, 2008-style!

That’s infotainment!

See? I told you that infotainment rules!

Idiotically and through a lens of partisanship, Jonah Goldberg tries to make this a patriotism problem for Barack Obama—it’s not only a low blow, but it detracts from his argument. Nevertheless, Goldberg hits on something that makes certain people allergic to Obama—his air of melancholy [e.a.]:

After 9/11, he wore it. During the debates over the Iraq war, he stopped because he saw the flag as a sign of support for President Bush. (He started wearing it again in May.) “I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest,” he added in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

Read that line again: “What I believe will make this country great.”

Not to sound too much like a Jewish mother, but some might respond, “What? It’s not great now?”

This sense that America is in need of fixing in order to be a great country points to Obama’s real patriotism problem. And it’s not Obama’s alone.

I noted Obama’s melancholy in April 2007, called him “Dr. Blue,” and said he is a downer!

It’s a problem, all right. It’s just not a patriotism problem.

Calling it a patriotism problem is partisan hackery (which is to be expected by someone who wrote a book titled Liberal Fascism, which I won’t link to. Feh).