01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, August 11, 2004

The latest tempest in Washington's teacup has been the dispute over Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's record in Vietnam. A group of swift-boat veterans has come forward to charge that his record of heroism is not as resplendent as he has claimed. Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) denounced their TV ad as "dishonest and dishonorable," while Democratic partisans contended that it is beyond bounds to even question Mr. Kerry's record.

Pardon most of America for wondering what this has to do with anything. Senator Kerry has certainly made Vietnam service the chief selling point of his candidacy, but Americans seem to make a more subtle calculation than war-hero-equals-my-vote. Otherwise, both George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole would have trumped Bill Clinton.

While it was important for Senator Kerry to impress on America, during the Democratic convention, that he could be trusted with the nation's defense, the meager "bounce" he got in the polls suggests that his war record alone is unlikely to swing many votes in November. By the same token, two election cycles' worth of attacks on President Bush's record in the Vietnam-era National Guard have done him little apparent damage.

This seems so, in part, because the Vietnam War was such a painful national ordeal. It was infused with moral ambiguity, touching those who served and those who didn't. Many people would rather cut that generation some slack, and move on. Few have an interest in turning Vietnam into a political football.

Senator Kerry has a right to cite his highly decorated war record, which by definition would appear to be most honorable. Members of his crew, including one whose life he saved, have testified to his heroism. Service in Vietnam as the commander of a swift boat required courage, and America should be grateful for that service. By the same token, veterans who have a different story to tell have a right to share it and express their view that Mr. Kerry is not fit to be president. Given the power of the presidency, it would serve the public's interest if reasonably objective observers could undertake a thorough look at any nominee's record, testing criticisms for validity (or scurrility). Nominees should make their records public.

But, ultimately, Senator Kerry's four months in Vietnam and his anti-war activities that followed are unlikely to sway the voters in November. President Bush's record over the last four years, and Senator Kerry's over a similar period, offer far more crucial evidence of how each could be expected to lead in the Oval Office during the next four years.