Raging John Kerry and his Grumbling Ground Troops in "The Curse of the Flinging Mudskippers"

There's a bit of a debate going on in the blogs about just how much service in the military does or does not add to the "electability" of a Democratic candidate. As I argued about with a GOP blogger last month, the service record of Democratic leaders unquestionably puts that of Republicans to shame. But the Democrats famously don't seem to be able to get any credibility with the voters from it.

The argument of those who think military service can and should gain them that credibility (like Neil) seems to take something of a beating from the experience of John Kerry. Kerry had a record that no ethical person could rationally have been expected to complain about. And you all know how that went.

But was Kerry the exception that tests the rule, or a big warning flag to others not to try selling Americans that ploy; they just ain't buying it? After all, Bill Clinton rather famously did not serve, but it doesn't seem to have affected his electability much.

NCHeartland writes in Daily Kos:

When Bill Clinton defeated veterans George H.W. Bush then Bob Dole, the era of required military service to serve the people was declared dead. Why is the Democratic Party trying to revive a dead era? Because there's a war on? Because they need a public relations face-lift? Stacking the House (and our party) with vets may sound like a good idea superficially, but what's the actual message? Is there any other kind of Democrat but a fighting one? Apparently not according to the "Fightin' Dems" brand. Forget education, jobs, privacy, community responsibility--our values and what we stand for; all we want now is 'boots on the ground' experience to combat Bush's war. The tactic looks cynical and reactionary--Why? Because it is. If many of us in the Democratic Party are turned off, what do you think swing voters (not to mention republicans) will think?

So do Democrats really "need" to be Veterans of any war? I think another possible reason for the deceptive appeal of the "fighting Dems" is that it's another excuse for Democratic "leaders" to say anything and everything but the plain and simple truth:

The President of the United States is a liar and a coward.

I believe, almost as an article of faith, that if John Kerry had stood up and said that, over and over and over again, people would have lined up to vote for him. I believe there were people who knew that to be true, knew it in their bones, even before the gradual unraveling of Bush's garments this year. And all they were waiting for was for someone to SAY IT.

But Kerry didn't. Why? I dunno. I only know his failure to do so led to the frustration that Jon Stewart expressed for me after an all-too typical clip of Kerry from the campaign.

"You're trying to lose!"

I think the "Swift Boating" of Kerry said more about him than it did about the "electability" of Democratic veterans. David Mamet wrote an op-ed last September in which he suggested

A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."

But as we all know, Kerry never said that or anything like it. For good or for ill, it's not the uniform, it's the man or woman inside it. Media Girl comes to a similar conclusion, and also links to several more voices in the debate.