I don't know, it depends. In all honesty, Clinton already got a pass on his tactics. That's the reason so many of us thought the nation was going to put what people did about Viet Nam behind us. If what Clinton did was OK, surely simply joining the National Guard would be a no brainer. What about about people who refused to serve and were jailed (Cassius Clay/Mohamed Ali) or even those who went to Canada? I have to say I admire what they did more than what Clinton did. They were true to their principles. I'd probably be happy to support them if they ran, too.

Regardless, I think timing is important. John McCain was certainly right to serve when he did and his record deserves admiration. The same with John Kerry and most others (I'll withhold comment on Bob Kerry's self-confessed war crimes). I'm just not going to get bent out of shape to learn that some candidate who became eligible from 1968 or so on was 4-F or found some way to stay out of Viet Nam.

If anything what annoys me is the perception that someone's record during Viet Nam only matters when it's to the advantage of the person you support and the disadvantage of someone you don't. If it's on principle that one thing. When it's just pure politics like that, that's another.