Although, as usual, he gets a lot of crap here, gbaikie made some good points.

Kerry is the one making his Vietnam service the foundation of his campaign. Maybe you've missed his most recent ads.

In this context, his performance in Vietnam is an issue. Personally, I don't see it as being nearly as relevant as his policies since then, and what his policies would be as President, but I'm not setting the rules up.

Nor do military service and heroism by themselves mean anything. Benedict Arnold was a war hero. Timothy McVeigh was a decorated veteran of the Gulf War. The first question I ask of those Democrats who say that Kerry's war service qualifies him to be President more than Bush, is "who did you vote for in 1996?"

The fact that a large number of Vietnam veterans are willing to go on record saying he should not be President is also an issue in this context, regardless of the firm attempt to spike this event on the part of the media.

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

- John Kerry, 1971