As the presidential election draws closer, I am increasingly thrilled to be a senior at a politically active university in arguably the most crucial American period in the last few decades. I am grateful that I have an active interest in electing one of this election cycle's presidential candidates, rather than mere excitement towards replacing an incumbent, regardless of who takes over. I say this because four years ago, when I was 900 miles east of this politically enveloped college town, I found myself having to settle for the lesser of two evils. Perhaps this was simply an unenthused response from a 17-year-old who could not vote, or perhaps it truly was a consistent attitude toward the fact that the presidential election was between two individuals who both initially supported waging war on Iraq.
As an angry juvenile, I overlooked the fact that Sen. Kerry, D-Mass., voted for the Iraq Resolution under the impression that it was a last resort. This is not by any means undermining the level of irrationality in his judgment, for last resort or not, when senators such as our own, Russ Feingold (D)-WI were able to see through this family-tied, war-hungry resolution, there is no excuse for others not to. However, when thinking seriously about this topic and how it was treated in the months leading up to November 2004, I cannot help but recall the infamous flip-flopping"" accusations, namely in regard to Kerry's morphed viewstowards the war that he voted for. In fairness, as Kerry stated, he voted based on the belief that war would only be utilized in a complete emergency where Iraq posed an imminent threat. Understandably, though, his original decision molded itself into a prime target for Republican criticism. After all, this was the main reason why I was not the slightest bit elated when he sealed the Democratic nomination.
It was while floating through my depressingly nostalgic memories of the 2004 election that I remembered how others regarded Kerry's military experience. I thought hard about this, considering how much press McCain's experience is getting for the 2008 election. People are putting trust in McCain as a commander in chief because he spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Military experience should not be taken lightly and of course should be honored and possibly work in a candidate's favor. However, when I think of how negatively viewed Kerry's experience was in comparison to McCain's, there is an uneven level of ex-military hype.
Looking back on my early wartime high school days, Republicans did not only succeed in downplaying Sen. Kerry's service to our country, they succeeded in demoralizing everything he did for America. Kerry was labeled a communist who committed treason by reporting unjust, torturous war crimes that he witnessed from some of his own soldiers.
It is because of this unfair ""flip -flopping"" with regard to when and where military honor should be granted that I do not have any room for people asking me ""how I feel"" about the fact that McCain served his country and Obama did not. Aside from the fact that honoring one's military background and feeling that they are ready to lead a country are two completely separate beliefs, this was not a decision-making factor in 2004, so why should it be now?
Dan Josephson is a senior majoring in political science and legal studies. We welcome your feedback. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
