Drudge reported it yesterday, and James of OTB comented on it, now it is in the NYT: 33 Years Later, Draft Becomes Topic for Dean
Dr. Dean got the medical deferment, but in a recent interview he said he probably could have served had he not mentioned the condition.
The only candidate likely to use this to attack Dean is Kerry (and mayber Clark). James is right, this has become a non-issue. And as James also notes, it isn't like Kerryis getting huge support from the fact that he served with distinction in Viet Nam.
Indeed, Dean's rather honest response (and one that couldn't have been given safely twenty years ago) will probably add to his aura as the "straight talking candidate":
"I guess that's probably true," he said. "I mean, I was in no hurry to get into the military."
Further, since he is running as essentially the anti-war candidate, in some ways this simply adds to that position in its own kind of way. In other words, the hard-core Democrats who are currently gung-ho for Dean are hardly going to fault him for not wanting to go to Viet Nam, now are they?
I also think that many people in, say, their fifties and above (read: many veteran reporters, editors, commentators and politicians) don't realize that to a whole lot of people these days Viet Nam is ancient history.
Heck, my undergraduates were in elementary school during the Gulf War--to them Viet Nam might as well be WWII.
Draft avoidance is a negative, but not a campaign killer by any stretch. It is like smoking marijuana -- there was time that any hint of such activity disqualified you (remember the Ginsburg nomination to the Surpreme Court back in 1987?), but now it can be forgiven.
Posted by Steven at November 22, 2024 09:01 AM | TrackBack