Presidential candidates right age for Vietnam, but few served in war

[Karmadillo]

Notice the detail Dean's military history gets. Fairly substantial, though nothing inappropriate given the facts. Then notice the detail Bush's military history gets in paragraph #3.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/25/national1257EDT0541.DTL

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats Wesley Clark and John Kerry are basing their presidential campaigns largely on military service that includes combat in Vietnam -- a distinctive qualification in a race full of candidates who came of age during the war but did not fight.

Their White House rivals did not serve in Vietnam, even though most turned 18 while young men were being drafted. They escaped combat with deferments for college, medical problems, fatherhood and by serving in the National Guard.

President Bush was in the National Guard during the war and did not see combat.

Clark and Kerry mention their military service in nearly every campaign appearance, offering their credentials as evidence they are best prepared to lead the nation during the fighting against terrorism.

more...

[IndianaGreen]

1. You will find that Lieberman had a 2-year period in which he was eligible

from the time his student deferment expired and he was first elected to office. Gephardt's record is totally silent. It is said he was in the reserves. Gephardt's own website is silent.

[pandatimothy]

2. Clinton wasn't in the military so your point is?

If your point is a military man is best for the job I don't buy it.

[Karmadillo]

3. My point?

My point was the disparity between the treatment of Dean's military history (several paragraphs including somewhat embarassing facts) and Bush's military history (one paragraph including no embarassing facts, though there are many from which to choose).

[blm]

5. This is just the beginning.

If Dean is the nominee, expect the media to paint Bush as a hero during Vietnam.

[Karmadillo]

9. That would be funny except there really is a good possibility

the media would focus on Dean's history without equally focusing on Bush's. Similar to the Gore is a pathological liar, Bush is a good fellow with whom to have a beer distinction from the last election.

[Orangepeel]

10. we can't expect fair treatment from the media, no matter who's the nominee

republicans will lie, bought-and-paid-for media will spread the lies, lazy media will repeat the lies and $200 million of advertising will ground them in deep.

No matter who our nominee is, we need to find a way to compete that doesn't depend on mass media or PR. We have to raise as much money as we can and mitigate the damage as much as possible, but we can't win with a traditional campaign. We'll be outspent and outlied. We need a guerilla campaign -- a national grassroots effort where people talk to other people directly. If we can knock on enough doors and make enough phone calls, we'll win. If we depend on television advertising and direct mail, we won't.

[blm]

11. Yes, they lie. Just like they have been all year.

Painting one candidate as the ONLY Democrat who speaks out against Bush. Ginning up lots of media support for that image.

They don't want Kerry to be heard because he has the intel community lining behind him and that case cannot be made to the American people. Too dangerous for Bush.

[JNelson6563]

12. I say "bring it"

Let's drag that dog out and have a good look. I suspect AWOL/Chickenhawk Simian doesn't want to take that path and neither do his handlers.

Army says you aren't fit to serve, you don't serve. End of story.

Bush's story ain't quite so cut and dry, now is it?

Bring it BFEE, we're ready.

Julie

[Bombtrack]

4. Many if not most voters disagree with you

To risk ones life so another american didn't have to mean's worlds to the vast majority of voters. Republican, independant, and democrat.

[dfong63]

6. but there's something more important

To risk ones life so another american didn't have to mean's worlds to the vast majority of voters. Republican, independant, and democrat.

but there's something more important: whether it was really necessary for any Americans to be over there risking their lives. and still more important: which of the candidates now running have the wisdom to make the proper judgment about when it is really necessary for American soldiers to risk their lives in a war.

Bush doesn't have that wisdom. no one who supported Bush's drive to war, who believed Bush's lies, has that wisdom either.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Clinton was not running for President after 9/11.......

or while a war is raging in Iraq!......so comparing apples with oranges ain't gonna do it!

[FrenchieCat]

8. He-lo, yea.......this is 9/11 post USA

Let's get real! or are we in denial?