Military records and picking presidents

This back and forth on the role of military service in evaluating presidential candidates has gotten to be needlessly convoluted. Can it not be agreed simply that the military service of a candidate for public office, or the lack thereof, is something for voters to take into account? A lack of service is not necessarily a disqualifier, and a military record isn't a "Get Into Office Free" card; just as a military record is undeniably a valuable thing to have in government and in life generally, and can reflect well on questions of character. It is something to be taken into account -- one of many considerations in a vote for Leader of the Free World.

In John McCain's case, it is not so much the mere fact that he served that inspires confidence, but that he went far above and beyond the call of duty, enduring imprisonment and torture for some five and a half years including in that hellish North Vietnam POW camp called the Hanoi Hilton -- without breaking or turning against the country he was suffering for.

And while we're on the subject, the new pro-Obama argument that John McCain's resume isn't suffiently "executive" or (bizarrely) "war-time" for the presidency is a strange fight for Obama supporters to pick: Barack Obama has exactly zero "executive" and "war-time" experience, and precious little experience of any other type for that matter. Obama is the political equivalent of a newsreader, an average TV anchor who reads whatever the telepromter shows, and has little to offer when the scrolling stops. So if John McCain's resume doesn't pass presidential muster for the Gen. Clarks of the world, then what are they seeing in Barack Obama's slender resume that has been lost on the rest of us?