What a difference four years and a different candidate makes. In 2004, military service was the sine qua non of a Presidential candidate. In 2008, when McCain has it and the Dems don’t, it’s a minus, of course. The only question is how to make that case with a straight face.
The New York Times takes a stab at it, aided by the fact that in print no one can see your face. Basically, the NYT’s argument is that the value of McCain’s service is negated by his time as a POW, because he missed the real Vietnam experience. Seriously. This is possibly even stupider that the LA Times’s argument that McCain shouldn’t be President because he’s receiving a disability pension (for injuries received as a POW).
Meanwhile, fake war hero Tom Harkin argues that while it’s okay for a President to have some military experience, he really oughn’t have too much. Better none at all than too much.
Mark Steyn gives both efforts their due mockery. Read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Fake war hero Tom Harkin says there was no bloodbath after the US abandoned Vietnam. (Via Instapundit.)
Internet Scofflaw 