"One last bit of bad news for Mr. Kerry was that he hardly did any better among veterans than Mr. Edwards, suggesting the Vietnam issue is one of the media obsessions that normal Americans don't much care about."

Just so. If nothing else, time has had its effect; it's now just about as long since the end of the Vietnam War, in 2004, as it was since the end of World War II in 1976, and I don't seem to remember anyone making much of a fuss about who did and didn't serve in WWII back in '76 either.

"One last bit of bad news for Mr. Kerry was that he hardly did any better among veterans than Mr. Edwards, suggesting the Vietnam issue is one of the media obsessions that normal Americans don't much care about."

Just so. If nothing else, time has had its effect; it's now just about as long since the end of the Vietnam War, in 2004, as it was since the end of World War II in 1976, and I don't seem to remember anyone making much of a fuss about who did and didn't serve in WWII back in '76 either.

Agree that Edwards would be the tougher candidate for Bush. Will the Dems realize this in time? Will they try have their cake and eat it to with a Kerry-Edwards ticket?
Conventional wisdom was that a drawn out Dem primary helped Bush by having the Dems spend a lot of time and money determining their candidate. The opposite of this is that Bush can't really begin to attack the nominee until he is known - much like an NFL defense can have problems if it doesn't know which quarterback it is facing.

A few comments and a wonder:

On the Dems having "their cake and eat it to with a Kerry-Edwards ticket?" Although reminiscent of Reagan-Bush in '80, I am not sure that candidates complement each other so well politically; the differences are in style and in perceptions. A combo may only highlight Kerry's haughtiness and Edwards inexperience (by comparison). More reminiscent of Bush-Quayle.

I agree that there are pros and cons (for Bush) of a longer Dem primary, but I am increasingly convinced that longer may be better because(a) news cycles are shorter and the maximum impact of an attack fusilade may be days or weeks, not months; and (b) I just don't see Bush wanting to do much attacking anyway (too bad), preferring the Dem contenders to do it for him.

As to Viet-Nam, am I the only one who believes that Viet-Nam should not be just a neutral for Kerry among veterans (and many others) since people want to forget, BUT that it should be a huge negative given the scandalous and fraudulent statements he made when he began to fight the political phase of the war? (Reading NR's article on the subject is enough to make me puke.)

MG:

Reagan had been governor of CA, Bush director of CIA. What comparable executive experience do Kerry & Edwards have?

Edwards can talk to the dead, so he's got that going for him.

oj -

Of course, there is no comparison; thus my hope that Kerry-Edwards combo does not add much to either candidacy alone.

Any thoughts on whethey or why not Kerry's behavior upon his return from Viet-Nam disqualifies him from getting the veteran vote?

MG:

There were a bunch of reports yesterday that Kerry is trying to get McAuliffe to shut up about Vietnam because it's hurting him more than W. Supposedly the Fonda/Kerry photos scared the heck out of them.

Kerry's Vietnam references don't help him because they're not "real". Oh sure, he was there and he did his job admirably...to most of us. But it also seems that HE didn't think it admirable at the time. So there's a element of "faking it" in his citing of his Vietnam history.

It's kind of like Sammy Sosa always talking about his time with the Rangers.

Um, I'm not trying to be a stick-in-the-mud, but how exactly does winning Wisconsin scare Kerry? I don't like the man, but I note that he's won all but, what, two primaries? Even when Edwards is close, Edwards doesn't win.

Edwards only got six less WI delegates than Kerry. If Dean endorses gives over all his delegates to Edwards, then Edwards actually won WI.

Timothy: Right. But that line about beggars and wishes still holds. Or horseshoes and hand grenades. Or whatever. Kerry still holds the lead, and Wisconsin -- where Edwards should have had a better than even shot, all things considered -- still went for Frankenstein.

Don't count the Vets out yet. They're just waiting to see who gets the nomination before they take the (please don't take this literally) shot. There's a lot boiling around the net. What you see on the media are a few blowhards at the bar at the local V.F.W. etc. looking for celebrity. They'll largely sail before any wind.