To have served, or not have served--why art thou worried about it?

[jmoss]

It doesn't matter if John Edwards has served or not.
He's the best nominee to take on the President.

Bush, sr. & Dole were veterans.
(How 'd that all work out?! :-) )

If John Edwards :-) is our nominee, some voters will shy away because they by into the "non-military experience" argument that will thrown his way. Many more, however, will vote with who they "like" better, or who seems more charismatic, without ever even quantifying why they voted that way (as are we, on DU).

Edwards has the intangibles which make him a strong, eloquent public figure, and an extremely viable option for many who aren't sure if they would vote, or who don't like Kerry or Bush.

No offense to John Kerry, please let it be known, is meant by my posting thread. I will support the nominee, and campaign for him to the best of my ability. But there is an, as yet uncounted, element of electricity that will radiate if//when John Edwards battles for the nomination.

1st) A great swing will have taken place if he gets the nomnation.

2nd )many voters who I talked to in WI, NH & TN, voted Kerry, even though there heart was with Edwards. They simply thought their "hearts are with edwards". They simply thought their votes wouldn't count-due to all the media hypes, and pre-election predictions!

[IndianaGreen]

1. Half the population of the US was born after the Vietnam War ended

They know nothing about Vietnam other than the highly sanitized version they might have heard from their elders, who seem to have forgotten the lessons learned in Vietnam.

[jmoss]

4. It seems dangerous to take on Pres on War record

This could be Kerry's downfall--playing GW's "war time" game.

John Edwards is a better candidate for the GE this year.

[emulatorloo]

7. IMHO Kerry neutralizes Bush's "war time" game

and speaks w authority on GWBs not keeping faith w vets, and then shifts focus to other issues - Jobs Health Care Deficits

with Edwards, Bush keeps his focus on "war time" game and other issues get lost. We won't get past Edward's lack of war time credibility.

Again, my humble opinion. And Edwards can count on my time etc if he becomes the nominee.

[Zardeenah]

2. Military service doesn't matter...

Only whether or not you lied about it.

One can honorably serve one's country without serving in the military, in many, many ways. Besides, I don't remember reading in the constitution that a tour of duty in the armed forces is a requirement for the Presidency.

Susan

[jmoss]

5. Good point!

President & his/her cabinet don't have to had served .

(Isn't DOD Secretary a MANDATED civilian position?)

I'm not anti-military. Just anti-a Democratic versionb of our current President. Honestly, it's boring watching John Kerry speak. I will vote DEM. irregardless of who wins the nom. But MORE people will vote if Edwards is the one.

[LuLu550]

8. I would also add

If you served HONORABLY. To me, there is a huge difference between Clinton not serving because he took college deferment and Bush signing up to serve and blowing it off.

It is my understanding Edwards was too young.

[Goldberg]

3. Edwards is a relatively fresh new face in politics.

We need more people like him...

[BOSSHOG]

6. I'm a Veteran

and Senator Edwards non-service is a non-issue with me. Senator Edwards is a strong supporter of veterans and I appreciate that. george bush is a deserter and HE AND HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE LYING ABOUT IT. bush does not care about veterans, only millionaires. Senator Kerry served admirably in VietNam and has my utmost respect; however if Senator Edwards is our Nominee he will have my unqualified support and what little fiscal assistance I can offer.