Well, it depends

Military service: A diminished campaign asset?

A hot topic seems to be Wesley Clark’s statements about how John McCain’s military service isn’t applicable to the presidential campaign:

“He hasn’t held executive responsibility…He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.”

Recall that he said basically the same thing about John Kerry in 2004.

It seems the only military experience that ‘s relevant is being a general. Maybe Clark should run. I’m sure his experience would easily win him the nomination.

Funny that the media seemed to be all over itself when its pick had more military experience. Now they wonder if military experience matters.


  1. Just off the top of my head it appears military service is not necessarily a benefit. In most cases the guy with the service record lost. So Obama probably doesn’t need to worry about McCain’s service. 1980 – Reagan (no service) beats Carter (USN) 1984 – Reagan (no service) beats Mondale (USA) 1988 – Bush 1 (USN) Beats Dukakis (USA) 1992 – Clinton (draft dodger) beats Bush 1 (USN) 1996 – Clinton (draft dodger) beats Dole (USA 2000 – Bush 2 (ANG, sort of) beats Gore (USA) 2004 – Bush 2 (ANG, sort of) beats Kerry (USN)

  2. Reagan was USA Reserve before WWII. His bad eyesight made him non-deployable so he was assigned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit. That should at least get him a ‘sort of.’ If we are handing out ‘sort of’s,’ Gore gets one too.