When Bill Clinton ran for president, the Left liked to remind us that "military service is irrelevant". Of course, all that changed for 2004 when John Kerry stated he was "reporting for duty". His Vietnam service was touted a qualifying factor for the job of Commander-in-Chief.
Now that Hillary and Obama are the frontrunners for the Left, are we back to "military service is irrelevant"? Or does what they said about Kerry still apply?
2007-02-01 09:06:27 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
According to liberals if a liberal runs military service no longer matters.
2007-02-01 09:11:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course they will. That is what a spin Dr. does. Makes a person appealing. Even if they are 180 degrees out of phase with the last person the Dr. made appealing. I like to see military service on a candidates resume but if it is absent it doesn't make for an automatic NO vote.
The only time Reagan wore a uniform was in a movie.
The man who played Capt. Kangaroo was decorated for his actions on the beach at Normandy. Lee Marvin called him, "the bravest man I ever saw". And you might like to know why Mr. Rogers always wore long sleeves.
Military service shows me that a person can adapt and overcome obstacles. It doesn't mean that is the only way to learn.
BTW, I am Retired Military and so conservative I make Rush Limbaugh look like a bleeding heart. I guess I am just feeling gracious today.
2007-02-01 09:25:47 · answer #2 · answered by gimpalomg 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With Hillary's past Scandal Baggage and Obamas past Islamic Fundamentalst Cocaine Baggage I'd say Military Service is the least of their problems.
Besides, anyone with common sense knows that it's only Conservatives who still see the Military as relevant anyway. Why would Liberals care about Military Service when their just gonna surrender anyway?
2007-02-01 09:12:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. i think of if Hillary bow out gracefully early incredibly while she knew she could not have gained, she may be the vice chairman immediately. I additionally blame the media for reporting that the race substitute into closer than it incredibly substitute into. it fairly is what Hillary supporter beleive immediately. The race wasn't close. HRC threw each little thing in the kitchen sink through fact she had to win so badly. She substitute into greater adverse in direction of Obama and alter into greater good than the Republicans. Hillary forgot they're on the same group. Now the Republicans are going to apply what HRC suggested approximately Obama against him. She shot herself in the foot. She wreck her very own opportunities. Plus, HRC substitute into to be #a million not #2. Obama has to have faith his vice chairman and he can't have faith Hillary. She needed him assassinated. The Clinton device substitute into overly beneficial and knew she had the nod in the bag. She felt entitled. Race remains the elephant in the room. some human beings will never vote for a qualified black guy no count what. ><
2016-10-16 10:22:37 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Military service is mostly irrelevant for both sides. It quit being relevant about 50 years ago. Plus those are only the front runners now because they are like celebritys. Wait until election time, I doubt either will be up for pres.
2007-02-01 09:10:31 · answer #5 · answered by E 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To a person with common sense, yes. To almost all liberals who never had any common sense, no. It has been obvious that neither has any experience in much of anything, especially Obama, since he has only spent two years in Congress, two years in a Catholic school, and the rest of the years of his life being a Muslim, and being taught in Muslim schools.
Hillary's only training in military is how to get our soldier's killed, and not defending America, by her only teacher, Bill Clinton. USS Cole, in Yemen, USA embassy in Africa, Somalia, letting Osama bin Laden go 7 times, etc. Good training Bill! How many more soldier's shall die uselessly Hillary?
2007-02-01 09:17:38 · answer #6 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO. THAT ONLY COUNTS FOR REPUBLICANS. DEMOCRATS GENERALLY HAVE LITTLE IN THE WAY OF MILITARY SERVICE AND IT IS ONLY AN ISSUE WHEN THE DEMS SAY IT IS. YOU EVER NOTICE THAT. BUSH HAS MORE MILITARY SERVICE THEN 75% OF THE DEM CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN BUT THEY BEAT HIS NATIONAL GUARD SERVICE TO DEATH. BUT IT WAS IRRELIVANT FOR CLINTON. ITS JUST ANOTHER TALKING POINT THAT MEANS NOTHING. NOT NEW FOR THE LIBS. AT LEAST KENNEDY HAD BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT-AND HE STARTED THE VIETNAM WAR!!!!
2007-02-01 09:25:35 · answer #7 · answered by Rich S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well cletus, just because being a highly decorated military war hero like kerry could be considered a qualifying factor, it is hardly the only one.
by the way, i understand why you aren't talking about the incredibly weak republican field for 2008...
2007-02-01 09:13:19 · answer #8 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends entirely upon who you ask, although it's not a major factor,to me, it is an issue that I consider each and every time...As you can see (Now) military experience IS a plus in time of War,But the ability to negotiate and prevent war is just as important, unfortunately with Bush,we got neither
2007-02-01 09:13:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would not matter if they were the Commandant of the Marine Corps, they still would not get my vote!
Either one of them would ever had made it through boot camp.
2007-02-01 09:14:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋