Speaking of Josh Marshall,

it appears that he really wants to be a campaign consultant. That's where the big bucks are. And he's ready with all the war metaphors. He won't let the Republicans get away with any dirty tricks this time. He knows that they're too simple to realize that there's a difference between the dopey "You didn't serve, so you don't get to talk," rhetoric and the point that just being a veteran doesn't make you unassailable on foreign policy and national defense. Ask George McGovern.

Marshall explains:

Republicans believe past military service counts on political and character grounds. So without a flutter of conscience they can maul Democrats who don't match up and even many who do. But Democrats don't think it should matter. So they should remain mum when Republicans run candidates who skated out of military service with whipped up medical ailments or political connections.

That sounds to me like unilateral disarmament, which last I heard is something Republicans don't believe in. I can understand why Republicans would want a political rule book that permits aggressive attacks by Republicans and prescribes timidity from Democrats. But I can't fathom why Democrats should go along with it.

Hmm. So, if I admire people who served in the military, it follows that not having served must be a devastating liability as a candidate? But then, why don't we have President McCain today?

Actually, Republicans believe that past military service helps people understand why a strong military is important and what it requires, but if it hasn't had that effect, I doubt that service, without more, will be enough. Likewise, the fact that someone won medals in Vietnam or was wounded in action doesn't entitle him to be president if he has spent the rest of his life demeaning the military and trying to cut funding for national defense. Protecting the country is the real issue. Kerry's been campaigning with denial of his vote for war in Iraq, claiming that he only meant it to authorize the threat of war, not war itself. If his testimony to the Senate in 1971 is to be believed, his service in Vietnam makes him a war criminal and those medals he won were given to him by leaders who betrayed him and forced him to commit atrocities.