I agree with you -Bull-, but let me throw a different angle into the mix of why their premise is not realistic.
Gen. Wesley Clark
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/
Clark joined the 2004 race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination as a candidate on September 17, 2003, but withdrew from the primary race on February 11, 2004. 5 months later.
He won the Oklahoma primary, but his problem was typical of anyone running for a national seat. He ran out of $$$. That and he couldn't connect with the voters.
Politics is a lot more than a resume, let's be honest, if you went on resume Barack Obama would not be President. People connected with him, personally, and that created a trust. It is the reason IMPO Romney will lose to him in Nov. They don't talk about favorables and unfavorables for no reason.
It is the same reason Bush beat Gore. Bush, like Obama is the guy you want to have a beer with, Clark Gore, McCain and Romney feel more like visiting the in-laws, you just count the hours until you are no longer around them.
Doesn't make it right that this is how voters vote, but that is part of our system now. We equate like to trust, trust to qualified for the job. We listen to what the media says, and rarely investigate on our own.
Nobody flame me about my in law comment, it really was about the favorable and unfavorables issue.
Serving in the military for political goals 15 yrs from now is not a good enough reason...ask GHWB 41. He lost to Clinton, a guy that never served 1 day and admitted to smoking pot, compared to 41 who not only flew in WWII, served as an MOC, Envoy to China (we had no Embassy, thus Envoy = Ambassador), Director of the CIA, Ambassador to the UN, VP and as President lead the successful campaign against Iraq.
Clinton won in part on a couple of things. It is the economy stupid. Read my lips no new taxes, and the mess up on visiting a grocery store where he was in awe of the scanners.
Voters felt 41 was old and out of touch with their lives, unemployment was high, housing market was in the tanks, there was no military threat. Clinton on the other hand was charm, young and vibrant. Yes, he was an adulterer, but to many that was between him and Hillary, and not a reason not to vote for him.
Clinton's resume was not why he became no. 42. If joining the military is the reason, re-think it. Trust me, hopefully I am around in 28 yrs, but you serving 10 or 20 yrs in the military will not be why I pull the lever for you. Like the majority of voters it is going to come down to my wallet. That probably means, I am going to care more about SS, than abortions. I am going to care more about Medi-Care than college loans. I will still care about the military because it impacts my wallet...VA benefits.
Deshawn, if you have yet to take APGov, I suggest you do, I know with my kids their positions and perspectives changed a lot because it was the 1st time they started to see the nuances and how it impacts everything within the system.