Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? 
[QUOTE=elucidator
A considerable portion of the outrage was the shattering of illussions. We grew up believers, there was no doubt, no question.
[/QUOTE]
Illusion shattering goes both ways, of course. For many years, it was a given that McCarthy was a nut, “free love was where it’s at” and drugs were the way to enlightenment. Prior to this 2004 campaign, millions of voters were hardly aware of Sen. Kerry, other than a vague confusion with that other “Kerrey”, from Nebraska. The former had successfully morphed his popular image into a ho-hum liberal politician from Massachusetts. Whoops!
Thanks to the Swift Vets, his activities during the war and subsequent to same have caused justifiable outrage. Not that long ago, the left-leaning major news media outlets would have ignored or white-washed Sen. Kerry’s involvement with the V V A W. This is no longer possible.
But why should this matter now (especially to those who are 40 or younger)? What good does it do to keep refighting the Vietnam War over and over again? At a certain point, you just have to move on.
The vast majority of the American public would love nothing better than to not be beaten over the head with the Vietnam War every day, unfortunately Kerry decided to make that the cornerstone of his entire campaign.
Makes me wonder why he would put the primary focus on a 4 months time period that happened 30 years ago instead of his entire Senate record (unless of course that’s on purpose 
).
One would hope he would have; but Sen. Kerry and his supporters inexplicably chose to make his service, such as it was, a centerpiece of his campaign. I agree, it’s nauseating.
The only thing that’s “nauseating” is the blindly stubborn refusal of some rightwingers to keep fighting the Vietnam War. The SBVT campaign really had nothing to do with any alleged fakery of combat heroics by Kerry but instead for his critical stance on Vietnam. Never mind the fact that the war’s been over for nearly 30 years, it’s payback time!
I guess some people just love to hold a grudge.
Time for a reality check - Nothing about the Vietnam War would be anywhere in the news if Kerry hadn’t insisted on bringing it up in the first place. Yes, there has been a lot of rightwing rebuttal, but it’s all been in response to Kerry’s insistence of making this the biggest issue in the campaign.
It’s his best example of his leadership skills in a war situation; why shouldn’t he use it?
Kerry’s Vietnam tours are nothing to be ashamed about, despite the efforts of the right to smear him otherwise. Especially since he actually showed up and got his ass shot at, unlike some other candidates we can mention…
It’s not his political stance per se that’s in question.
It’s the fact that he served, then stabbed his fellow servicemen in the back. It’s the fact that his statements served to hearten the enemy. It’s the fact that he committed treason and is now running for President.
Well, why didn’t you say so! That clears up everything! All right-thinking real Americans agree that unstinting and unquestioning obedience to The Leader is required of all real Americans.
Except, of course, for American interference with the Balkans. That’s differerent, because the men who criticized Clinton were real Americans, on a noble crusade to unseat a President who had waged war under false pretenses and had stained the dignity of the Oral Office. That’s an entirely different matter, and all right-thinking Americans agree.
I am sure friend Clothahump will be amongst the first in line to accept installation of his Patriot Chip.
Sarcasm aside, Clothahump, when telling the truth is treason, we no longer have a country to be loyal to. Merely a geographic entity, a set of borders in which we happen to reside.
Amen and amen, Elucidator. The Vietnam War is important mainly because it illustrates what free people can do when they become vigilant — the war ends, and the administration that delays its end is toppled.
Equine feces.
I sincerely doubt that Kerry would even be the Democratic nominee if not for his military service. The Republicans chose the battleground here. Well before the Democratic primaries began, the Republicans made it clear that national security and the War on Terror were to be the centerpiece of the re-election campaign strategy. The Democrats knew that they were going to have to go up against the self-proclaimed incumbent “Dubya-A-R president”. Don’t you remember “Mission Accomplished”?
Had this not been the situation, Dean was a much more likely candidate. Edwards may have had a better shot at the top of the ticket. The caucuses in Iowa went for Kerry for this very reason. None of the other Democratic candidates had the necessary national security foundation to withstand the inevitable assualts from the Republican guerilla tactics.
It wasn’t Kerry and his campaign that put Vietnam front and center. It was, however, the Democrats. But only after the Republicans chose the venue.
Laughable response. If prior military experience was the only qualifier, there was a much better candidate available during the primaries.
This is not a new issue for Kerry, I think what is different is that O’Neill is once again well-funded and is starting to gather a number of ther Vietnam Vets that sympahize with his point of view.
Did someone suggest that it was the only qualifier? Didn’t think so.
What is laughable is the assertion that the Dems (or Kerry) were the first to put “war”, and the credentials of leading this country in times of one, at the forefront of this election.
True, you didn’t say only, but you certainly implied primary.
Our complaint was being drug through the Vietnam War again - which IS Kerry’s doing.
IMHO, a long term Senator should be able to distinguish themself as a leader by standing on their record (or in Kerry’s case - maybe not - he’s certainly chosen to ignore it).
I see your point, but far better candidates could have been chosen, in my opinion. Guys that did a couple tours come to mind, not a fello who did a few months, and then started smoking dope and talking shit about the government at the earliest opportunity, negotiating with north vietnamese communist leaders, etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Gen. Clark might have been the guy, what happened to him?
Insufficient political clout.
elucidator, even though I hate your guts, have driven all night to Nipples, MN, to spit on your father’s grave and have alerted all branches of government that you are a dangerous terrorist, I agree with you.
perhaps I can ask the FBI to back off…
I thought it was “Dean all the way” until he over-reacted AT HIS ALMOST NOMINATION.
Set me straight.