Orlando of Ft. Hard Knox was pressed by a friend to answer who he’d vote for if he had to vote for one of the Democratic candidates for President.
After an amusing analysis of each candidate, he answered:
“Well, I’d rather throw myself under a moving train than vote for Hillary. So, that leaves Obama,†I resigned myself.
“Why?†said my friend.
I sighed. “Obama, despite his liberalism at least has integrity. I don’t agree with his politics but I have a hard time disliking him. America could benefit from his optimism and communication skills just as they did from Ronald Reagan.â€
“You’re not going to vote for Obama, are you?†asked my friend.
“Nope. Not a chance!â€
I wouldn’t vote for a single one of them because not a single one of them ever served in the US military*. But if I were to throw out that one stipulation, I agree with Orlando’s reasoning about voting for Obama.
________
* The last time neither Presidential candidate had any military experience was 1944, when FDR won his fourth consecutive presidency by defeating Democrat Thomas Dewey.
Unless McCain gets the GOP nomination (the most likely GOP candidate with military experience to get the nomination), this will be the first time in 64 years that neither candidate has served.
I don’t think this is a good thing, and hope it doesn’t start another trend of non-military Presidents and presidential candidates like the trend that occurred between 1908 and 1944.
During those 10 elections, not a single eventual winner had ever served in the military — FDR (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944), Hoover (1928), Coolidge (1924), Harding (1920), Wilson (1916, 1912), and Taft (1908). And of the losing candidates, only three had previous military experience — Willkie (1940), Landon (1936), and Teddy Roosevelt (1912).
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
Say what you want about Clinton, but Obama is a black Jimmy Carter, who still holds the title of the worse American president e-vah! Then again, he would only last one term as opposed to Clinton holding two. Oh, but the damage he could do in a mere four years!
Somehow FDR and Wilson managed to conduct pretty successful wars without the benefit of personal military experience. I think your criteria seems independent of the President’s actual performance in office.
You’re right Preston — my personal criteria for not voting for a president who has not served has nothing to do with the ability of a person to serve as President without having served in the military.
Which is why I intentionally listed some recent great Presidents who had not served in the military.
I put military service to one’s country above any other service, especially that of politician. Military is at it’s core a selfless service, whereas politics is the essence of selfish service.
I just want to know that the man or woman I’m voting for has — at least at one point in their life — acted selflessly on behalf of their country.
Some people use abortion as a litmus test for who they’ll vote for. Some people simply vote a straight party ticket as their litmus test.
My litmus test is military service.
If you want the power to send young men and women into battle, you had damn well have been willing to go yourself at some point in your life.
Curious why men in particular so dislike Hillary Clinton. Is it because of her personality, that she’s forceful? What has she done that has so riled men?
It’s a good observation, Dianne. I certainly remember my father’s friends calling her some vile names back in the 1990′s for- what- being accomplished? speaking? It really didn’t seem policy-related so much.
Even among male liberals (myself included) Hillary Clinton is not typically the favored candidate though I don’t doubt that they will fall behind her if she wins the nomination.
If she turns out to get the nomination it will be a very interesting election. I would imagine an historic gender gap.