This is what worries me about the AWOL story and its relation to the Kerry

[anti-NAFTA]

This story's timing seems to have been designed to make Kerry the de-facto nominee. Because, now that it's been let out, if Dean gets the nomination, what's going to happen to it?

This story should have been saved for after Kerry's nomination if Kerry were to be the nominee. Let's not kid ourselves, if the criminal outing of a CIA agent as an act of intimidation is going to be forgotten (purposely) by the media, there is no way that this story will have legs to carry Kerry till November.

This issue has threatens to both unfairly secure the nomination for Kerry and (because of its hasty timing) to cost us the election in November (b/c Kerry is running primarily on his service record).

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. AWOL will be a big story if * runs against veteran Kerry.

With any other nominee it will become a minor issue.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

2. Let's be realistic

Dean doesn't have a chance at taking the nomination now.

I'm inclined to think Kerry has this wrapped up, but if anyone overtakes him, it would be Edwards - even that is a longshot.

[HereSince1628]

6. Help me out, Edwards chose not to serve, Bush did but badly

Edwards was old enough (months older than me, and I got to know the friendly confines of Davis Station)to volunteer and serve in the last years of the Vietnam conflict.

He wasn't subject to the draft, but he could have volunteered. He didn't. But he voted to authorize sending NG grandparents to Iraq.

Bush volunteered, served badly, but got an honorable discharge.

What's better? Shirking the opportunity to serve in any capacity (as Edwards did) or volunteering, and sort of fulfilling your responsibility?

Then again, I suppose his southern accent absolves all of this. Without Clark I suppose there is no one to carry the unfaithful south except Clark.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

7. Bush didn't exactly "volunteer". His service was mandatory.

Bush "volunteered" to avoid Vietnam by getting special treatment and cutting to the front of a long waiting list for stateside Nationial Guard duty. And then he went AWOL for part of that!

As far as Edwards goes, he had no responsibility to serve. The Vietnam war was unpopular and wrong, and nobody in their right mind would volunteer to go get their ass shot off just for the fun of it. I don't hold that against Edwards.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calimary]

14. Not sure that last post was a diss to the guard or anybody

who served therein, by volunteering. I think the point may have been that it was just another in a long series of sweetheart deals bush took advantage of because of his family's string-pulling skills. Just guessing, here. I don't presume to speak for anybody other than myself, however.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

16. Well Geeze, it wasn't personal.

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth that simply were not there. Nowhere did I say those that those who volunteered provided nothing worthy of honoring.

But personally attacking me because I don't hold it against a man for not volunteering to get his ass shot off in an unjust and unpopular war that the vast majority of this country now agrees was wrong to begin with hardly sounds democratically spirited to me.

You can rhetorically spit on me if you please. The reflection is on you.

[dsewell]

8. What is the story on Edwards and the military?

Edwards would have turned 18 during the last couple of years of the draft lottery. Did he take his chances with the lottery and not get picked, or did he have a student deferment?

[HereSince1628]

11. Edwards had a " high" number and wouldn't have been drafted

even if the draft had gone after our yearclass.

Nonetheless, many of us DID volunteer. Edwards made a choice. Service wasn't demanded of him. So he didn't.

Unassailable. Indeed exactly what one would expect from the personality that later became a mulitmillionaire once-lawyer turned senator who supported the war in Iraq.

And he wasn't doing so because of Neocon influence he was doing it because of PPI/DLC influence. That makes it all OK, right?

[AP]

3. I agree with this. Especially the last paragraph.

[lancdem]

4. I think the Dems waited until Kerry was the front-runner

before launching the AWOL line of attack. I believe the intent is to put Bush on the defensive and cut into his supposed strength as commander-in-chief.

[BOHICA06]

15. Wasn't it Michael Moore ...

and his introduction of Clark that got turned into a debate question that started it all.

Would have been much more effective in September, but now it will be gone by Easter.

[forgethell]

5. That is truly

convoluted thinking, if I heard you right. so let's see, a story that hurts Bush is bad because it came too early? It should have been 'saved' to destroy * later in the election season? And the fact that it wasn't hele on to is somehow 'unfair' because it will secure the nomination to Kerry and (this is a stretch)and cost us the election?

So did the Repukes* release this information to help *?.

But on another level, so what? so what if they use dirty tricks? They always have, and so have we. If we are entitled to plan and scheme and, well, ambush the Repukes with 30-year old stories, and we are, then so are they. So we can expect it. Count on it, the Duckman, I forget his name, or somebody else, is sitting on a story about * right now, waiting for the weekend before the election. And so what?

[union_maid]

9. I have some reservations, too.

Too late now, the cat's out of the bag, but it did seem like a good thing to hold in reserve for a lot of reasons. Keep in mind, however, that it was Michael Moore who brought it up, not a Kerry supporter. McAuliffe was probably right to run with it while it was hot, controversial and the Repubs were playing along by denouncing the statement right and left. To wait until after the convention at that point would be to try to serve it up having been warmed over twice. Might be way stale by then.

On the plus side, one person pointed something out about it to me today, that made me smile. She said that the really important thing about this story is that an awful lot of the public kind of had the vague impression that Bush was a Vietnam Vet and was entitled to wear that flight suit and some even thought he was a war hero. That's the public who thought Saddam was behind 9/11 and that we'd found WMD in Iraq, remember? This will at least educate some people to the fact that Bush was no war hero.

[paulk]

12. your entire premise is.... flawed

If Kerry is now seen as the de-facto nominee, it's because he's been winning most of the vote, not because of this story. The awol story has legs exactly because Kerry is now seen as the probable challenger to Bush.

[stickdog]

13. Mickey Kaus: Blogger of the Obvious

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238/

The AWOL Mystery: Why are Democrats bringing up the Bush/National Guard/AWOL issue now? Sure, the press is playing along and it's having an impact--but by November, when the Dems need it, it will seem like very old news. If you want to win the election, the time to start a media AWOL frenzy is in August or September, no? Yet commentators continue to look for the anti-Bush logic in the Democratic strategy. Tim Russert was just on Hardball saying the AWOL issue is a "warning shot" from the Kerry camp telling Bush he shouldn't accuse Kerry of being weak on defense.

Huh? Maybe I don't understand the Bonesman's Code in which Kerry communicates with Bush--and there have been other ominous Kerry camp warnings about putting "everything ... on the table", etc.--but is there any chance Bush won't accuse Kerry of being weak on defense? No. And how would Bush be dissuaded by a "warning" that Kerry might raise the AWOL issue when Kerry's already raising the AWOL issue--and by doing so is diminishing, not enhancing its November effectiveness? It doesn't make sense ...

That is, it doesn't make sense unless you view the AWOL issue as a primary election strategy, not a general election strategy. Its purpose is not to boost the Democrats (in November), but to boost Kerry (now). By getting the press talking about the chest-full-of-medals vs. slothful Guardsman issue, Kerry has helped convince Democratic primary voters that Bush is beatable--reinforcing the blindered Democratic focus on winning--and conferred on himself the Aura of Electability that is his only real selling point. Equally important, he's taking up valuable media time that might otherwise be spent scrutinizing him and inducing buyer's remorse--and which his rivals, especially Edwards, might otherwise use to get their messages out.

It's quite brilliant, really--until you realize that it sacrifices Democratic interests in the fall for Kerry's interests today. ... P.S.: Sure there are plenty of Democrats not necessarily affiliated with Kerry who are eager to raise questions about Bush's National Guard service. But Kerry has clearly been stoking the story. ...