Like all good liberals, they'll someone how spin it as irrelevant and anyone who questions it as a hatemonger. Personally, I love them both, since the both represent the best chance of another Republican being elected President!!
2007-03-10 05:10:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
6⤋
"John Kerry replaced right into a adorned Vietnam conflict Veteran (supposedly)." not supposedly. it somewhat is a actuality. He replaced right into a adorned Vietnam Veteran to spite what a flock of politically inspired reported almost 40 years after the reality. "So the place replaced into Hillary Clinton nd Barak Obama on an identical time as John McCain replaced into in a POW camp? If Vietnam provider replaced into so important whilst John Kerry replaced into working for president, why isn't Vietnam provider important now that Clinton and Obama are working?" it continues to be important, yet of course it somewhat is not the only element human beings use whilst they vote for president. If it replaced into, Kerry might have gained.
2016-10-18 01:08:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If Wiki is correct (I'm going to assume it is), Vietnam lasted from 1959 to 1975, Obama was born in 1961. That means that he was only in the ballpark of 14 years old when the war ended, so no, he was not old enough to enlist in armed services.
Hillary Clinton was in college from 1965 to 1969.
After that, she was working in Yale as a member of Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action
2007-03-10 05:17:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by AxMan_12 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
They don't need to. I didn't serve in Vietnam or the military along with millions of other Americans. I don't accept service in Vietnam or the presidency as a litmus test for becoming president. And, do your math, anhyone under about 53 was too young.
2007-03-10 05:23:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Tony T 1
·
2⤊
1⤋
I have to laugh at this question.
The Vietnam war was from 1959 to 1975. Obama was born in 1961. Meaning the war had alread started when he was born, and it ended when he was 14. Exactly how was he supposed to serve?
As far as Clinton, females were not allowed in combat units during the Vietnam war. So, yes, she could have served state-side in some administrative capacity. But exactly how is that supposed to make any difference to her qualifications?
2007-03-10 05:13:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
As much as I do not care for either of these folks, there are good reasons. We ended the draft in 1973. Barrack was 12 years old. We never drafted women, so Hillary wouldn't have gone to Vietnam either.
2007-03-10 05:15:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Clinton is a woman.. And Obama wasn't old enough..
No one cares that they didnt serve in Vietnam except for you
2007-03-10 05:14:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
Do you know how old Obama is? The so called "not old enough crap" does apply to him. Clinton was busy getting educated he got deferrments just like Cheney.
2007-03-10 05:11:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
Kerry actually did service in Vietnam and yet the Swift Boat
Veterans tried to use it against him.
Now lack of service is a disqualifier?
You guys need to make up your minds...
2007-03-10 05:11:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Elana 7
·
7⤊
2⤋
hopefully they are a fraction as successful as cheney & dubya were at spinning their failure to serve.
and obama would have been about 8 when most soldiers were deployed in 'nam. that is not spin. that is called the reality of a man born in 1961 being unable to serve in vietnam in any way, shape or form.
2007-03-10 05:10:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
They'll spin in the same manner your president has spun his lack of service in the service.
2007-03-10 05:11:24
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋