I'm not a big Kerry fan, as many of you will know. But I just don't think his war record is all that relevant. I know Vietnam vets might care about the specifics, but for most people it's just "oh, he was heroic in Vietnam, that's pretty cool." Contrary to what Claymore suggests, I don't think many Democrats revere Kerry for his war service, and they didn't revile Oliver North for his. Democrats disliked North because what he was doing in Iran-Contra was against their values. Republicans mostly liked him because it was consonant with their values. His war service was basically irrelevant.

Right now, people feel someone with wartime experience is reassuring because of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. But only the media and Kerry himself are fixated on it. Remember, Gore's service in Viet Nam didn't get him elected, Clinton's failure to serve didn't prevent him from being elected, and neither Dole nor Bush I could parlay their WWII heroism into a victory over Clinton. When it's time to vote, people will vote on values, issues, and image, not on who has the best wartime service record. The winner will be the one more Americans trust. If Kerry gets the nomination, I'll be pulling for him.

As for "southerners don't like Lawyers," they liked Clinton pretty well. We'll have to see if Edwards resonates or not; I'll bet he does resonate pretty well, but it may not be enough to win many southern states.