# Vietnam - an issue in presidential politics for the forseeable future? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2006, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189 "2006-08-25T12:58:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Can\_Handle\_the\_Truth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Can\_Handle\_the\_Truth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Can_Handle_the_Truth)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/1 "2006-08-25T12:58:06Z")
For 47 years after WWII we had presidents who were involved in the war in some way. Is it going to be the same with Vietnam? Are we going to have issues about who served and who didn’t, or who served “honorably” and who didn’t, or who was in combat vs. being a supply person or something… Are we going to have to go through this until 2020? Because that would really suck. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/2 "2006-08-25T13:06:49Z")
I can see it, as long as the candidates are old enough. But God, will it suck. I was born well after the end of Vietnam and I don’t really care if the guy running for office went to Vietnam, got waivered out, dodged service, or anything else. The system set up was stupid and entirely unfair (plus I grew up and live in an age of the volunteer military and remember nothing else) and then the war itself, or at least the way we conducted it, turned out to be stupid and meaningless in the long run. Back in 2004 I was going “I don’t care what they did or didn’t do 30 years ago, what the hell are the candidates proposing for domestic and foreign policy TODAY?” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/3 "2006-08-25T14:07:36Z")
I don’t think so. The “Vietnam War” issue was a really big deal in 2004 just because it was John Kerry running, and he was the one who made it a big deal (the Purple Hearts and the Winter Soldier investigation). Even though Vietnam wa an issue in 1992 and 2000, it wasn’t a major one. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/4 "2006-08-25T14:37:47Z")
In six of the last seven presidential elections, a candidate who served with honor in combat zones has been defeated by a candidate who either dodged the draft or reached a nice, comfortable non-combat position by questionable means. (Although in 2000 the American people selected the war hero and only the Supreme Court chose otherwise.) That suggests that harping on war records isn’t an effective tactic. Though future candidates may still do so. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/5 "2006-08-25T15:12:22Z")
Although I agree that Gore was undoubtably a better candidate and all round cooler person than Bush, I’m not sure if “war hero” is the correct term with which he should be characterized, and I don’t think he himself would use that term. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/6 "2006-08-25T15:18:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Even though Vietnam wa an issue in 1992 and 2000, it wasn’t a major one. It sure seemed like a major issue at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/7 "2006-08-25T16:19:57Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > It sure seemed like a major issue at the time. The hamsters ate my post, but to sum up what I was saying, I don’t recall it being an issue at all in 2000, and in 1992, the draft-dodging was just one of a bunch of “character issues” the Republicans tried to stick Clinton with. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/8 "2006-08-25T16:24:09Z")
Will it be an issue if McCain runs in '08? ---
**Author:** ![Can\_Handle\_the\_Truth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Can\_Handle\_the\_Truth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Can_Handle_the_Truth)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2006, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/9 "2006-08-26T03:28:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Will it be an issue if McCain runs in '08? You can bet your ass that, even now, the Dems are searching for former POWs who will say that McCain wasn’t that big of a hero. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2006, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/10 "2006-08-26T06:04:43Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > …I don’t really care if the guy running for office went to Vietnam, got waivered out, dodged service, or anything else…what the hell are the candidates proposing for domestic and foreign policy TODAY?" The only circumstance in which whether a candidate did or didn’t avoid the draft (legally or illegally) would be if his platform included reinstating conscription. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2006, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vietnam-an-issue-in-presidential-politics-for-the-forseeable-future/370189/11 "2006-08-26T13:34:31Z")
> [@Can Handle the Truth](#): > > You can bet your ass that, even now, the Dems are searching for former POWs who will say that McCain wasn’t that big of a hero. :dubious: Somehow I doubt that.