>You are assuming something that isn't true, probably based on media reports. Take Clinton - he never served and yet became President - twice. Service doesn't qualify you to be President - if it did, Reverend Wright would be president. I think it becomes a 'hot topic' when we are at war or there is a possibility of war.

I did not say that you need to have a military background to qualify, but rather it that the military service always seem to be a hot topic on the election. It seems irrelevant to me. The government is not the military (though you have to wonder the last 8 years). A candidate has to have a lot more in his intellectual bagage than hist past military service.

>But, if you are really interested in a take on the effect military service has in presidential races, read this (it's short):

>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-flip-flop-on-importance-of-military-service/

Which is exactly showing what I mean. It is ugly. Is this democracy or demoncracy? Ordinary mudthrowing, something that should not be a part of a civilised country.