Will a Vietnam Vet Ever Become President

[tietcanh76]

3 vietnam vets have lost the presidential election in a row.
Will 2012 be the last year a vietnam vet can run for president because when 2016 comes around most of them would have been in their late 60's. 

If Hagel runs and beats Obama, he will make it.
Are there any other vietnam vets who are republicans that might run?

[Matt Damon™]

Probably not.

[Eraserhead]

Very unlikely.

Hagel would never run against Obama either. They are pretty friendly with each other and it's pretty obvious that Hagel voted for him.

[memphis]

Military service is the kiss of death in presidential campaigns.

[paul718]

Military service is the kiss of death in presidential campaigns.

At least in recent years.  It's a shame, really. 

Prediction:  The first Iraq War veteran to become President will be a Democrat.

[Holmes]

My prediction is that an Iraqi vet probably wouldn't be using their status as one as a big talking point compared to, for example Vietnam and WW2 vets, unless the next gen is really indifferent on the war compared to the current one.

[Daniel Z]

Military service is the kiss of death in presidential campaigns.

I don't think so. It is probably just a coincidence that we haven't had one since Bush Sr.

[Aizen]

Military service is the kiss of death in presidential campaigns.

I don't think it's a kiss of death so much as it is a non-factor (Which it should be)

[paul718]

My prediction is that an Iraqi vet probably wouldn't be using their status as one as a big talking point compared to, for example Vietnam and WW2 vets, unless the next gen is really indifferent on the war compared to the current one.

I don't understand your reasoning.  I don't see how the Iraq War generation could be more peacenik-type than the Vietnam War generation.  Yet, service in Vietnam is still seen as a "plus" (I would say) for candidates. 

I don't think it's a kiss of death so much as it is a non-factor (Which it should be)

You don't think it's preferable for the Commander-in-Chief to have served in the military himself?  I understand lower-ranked soldiers (even officers) don't gain much executive experience relative to governing, but I think it's a good thing, when a President sends soldiers to sacrifice for their country, that he had volunteered for that sacrifice himself.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Military service is the kiss of death in presidential campaigns.

I don't think it's a kiss of death so much as it is a non-factor (Which it should be)

This is the correct answer.

It might be preferable for the Commander-in-Chief to have served his country, but military experience is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to governing.

[Lunar]

Military service is the kiss of death in presidential campaigns.

It seems like a boost in the primaries, if nothing else.  McCain & Kerry & Kennedy  & co. would have had no chance without it. 

It's not a sure-fire thing, but yeah, people vote on biography and associated "electability" more in the primaries than in the general election.

John Kerry is the first candidate in modern memory that was attacked for his service -- although he was also attacked for possible lies about the war afterwards.  Lunar is still surprised that a you-didn't-earn-those-medals argument gained so much traction, but yo, T. Boone Pickens gets his way.

[Associate Justice PiT]

      Military service in WWII is a boost whereas military service in Vietnam is a detriment.

[paul718]

      Military service in WWII is a boost whereas military service in Vietnam is a detriment.

Example?

[anvi]

Speaking purely as a voter, I think military service is always laudible in a candidate, and is never irrelevant.  I don't believe candidates who served in the military ever get tagged for whether or not the public thought the war they fought in was right or wrong, for the public knows that soldiers are not policy-makers, and no matter what one's assessment of the war in which a candidate served, what counts is that the candidate did serve and put his or her life on the line in the service of their country and all of our freedom.  I think Kerry's service in Vietnam was attacked with incredible dishonesty and disgrace, and I find McCain's service in Vietnam to be nothing less than superhuman and humbling.  Had McCain won the Republican nomination in 2000, I would have seriously considered voting for him, and it's sad that the McCain of 2008 was a much different candidate for reasons that we all know.  It's just that, in campaigns, the military service just isn't enough when compared with pressing issues of the day and where the candidates happen to stand.  Will a veteran of the Vietnam war every be elected to the White House?  Unfortunately, I doubt it at this point, and that fact doesn't speak well of us.  Despite the fact that I have always been opposed to the war in Iraq, if any candidate, Republican or Democrat, ever runs for the presidency, no matter what they themselves think of the rightness of the war. I will have both great respect and great gratitude for them and their service.   

[Holmes]

My prediction is that an Iraqi vet probably wouldn't be using their status as one as a big talking point compared to, for example Vietnam and WW2 vets, unless the next gen is really indifferent on the war compared to the current one.

I don't understand your reasoning.  I don't see how the Iraq War generation could be more peacenik-type than the Vietnam War generation.  Yet, service in Vietnam is still seen as a "plus" (I would say) for candidates. 

My reasoning is that campaigning on the fact that you're an Iraqi vet would send a message that you supported that war and the guy behind it, even if it's not the case. But saying "Vote for me because I was an Iraqi vet, but I totally hated the war!" makes no sense.

[paul718]

My prediction is that an Iraqi vet probably wouldn't be using their status as one as a big talking point compared to, for example Vietnam and WW2 vets, unless the next gen is really indifferent on the war compared to the current one.

I don't understand your reasoning.  I don't see how the Iraq War generation could be more peacenik-type than the Vietnam War generation.  Yet, service in Vietnam is still seen as a "plus" (I would say) for candidates. 

My reasoning is that campaigning on the fact that you're an Iraqi vet would send a message that you supported that war and the guy behind it, even if it's not the case. But saying "Vote for me because I was an Iraqi vet, but I totally hated the war!" makes no sense.

I disagree.  I don't think vets are held responsible for whatever war they fought in.  It seems that virtually all Americans, both Republican and Democrat, hold veterans in extremely high regard.  The Democrats (the current "anti-war" party) has been actively recruiting Iraq War vets to run for congressional seats. 

Where I don't understand your reasoning, is in your comparison with Vietnam vets.  I mean, that's where you had people (an extreme minority of people) spitting on vets and calling them "baby killers".  Yet we just had a general election nominee with a huge chunk of his biography based on his Vietnam service.

[minionofmidas]

Wars like WWII, the Mexican War, the Civil War led to commanding officers becoming Presidents. I think it is patently obvious why no Viet Vet of that type has ever emerged as a contender. It is also quite unlikely that any Iraq or Afghanistan commander runs for President.

That leaves common soldiers (or the vast array in between, of course. Simplifying in order to make a point here). The Vietnam-era draft was easy enough to get around for the better-offs - most of the dying was done by the working poor of both races. And we know enough about the US political system to understand that only a handful of Presidents were born into The Other Half. Especially as your traditional "poor but very good student, goes to college on a scholarship" type of biography had good draft-dodging potential (as viz. Clinton, W.J.)

And then there's the random element of chance. Vietnam did produce three major party candidates, after all - that none of them won is coincidence.

There are far fewer Iraq vets than there are Viet vets (unless I'm sorely mistaken), so it's a bit unlikely that there'll be more than one or so ever running for President.

[Nixon in '80]

Wars like WWII, the Mexican War, the Civil War led to commanding officers becoming Presidents. I think it is patently obvious why no Viet Vet of that type has ever emerged as a contender. It is also quite unlikely that any Iraq or Afghanistan commander runs for President.

I know Patraeus probably won't run, but that's for reasons besides his position as a commander in Iraq... actually, the only reason he is even talked about is because of Iraq.

Do you reject him out of hand, or is he the lone exception?

[Erc]

The youngest draftees were born in '52, right?  So, by 2016, those would only be 64, so it could come up as an issue yet again.

[Psychic Octopus]

Sadly, I don't think so. But who knows maybe one of the youngest draftees will make in in 2016.

The vietnam vets are the most forgotten vets. It is a shame, but it is true.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The vietnam vets are the most forgotten vets.

Not by alcohol retailers!

[Associate Justice PiT]

      Military service in WWII is a boost whereas military service in Vietnam is a detriment.

Example?

WWII vets: 3-0
Vietnam vets: 0-4

     An oversimplification, though it makes sense given the perpetuation of the stereotype of Vietnam veterans as crazy by movies such as Full Metal Jacket.

[Psychic Octopus]

The vietnam vets are the most forgotten vets.

Not by alcohol retailers!

LOL.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Military service is the kiss of death in presidential campaigns.

I don't think it's a kiss of death so much as it is a non-factor (Which it should be)

This is the correct answer.

It might be preferable for the Commander-in-Chief to have served his country, but military experience is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to governing.

[Psychic Octopus]

I value miltary service for a president during wartime, though, but during Peace it is not a factor to me.