That's a very fair question and it's quite debatable. Here's my opinion (as if it matters):
Normally, military records would not play such a role. However, in this campaign, both candidates touted their records. It's safe to say that both were foolish to do so. Bush touted his to counter Kerry's, but Kerry's are under suspicion due to how closely guarded portions of them are after he demanded Bush release his.
The records themselves wouldn't be such a centerpiece had the candidates, most notably Kerry, not used their service as a major campaign prop.
Now, in both Bush's and Kerry's specific cases, there are questionable events or periods of time. Bush allegedly had strings pulled for him and may have even been AWOL at one point, while Kerry allegedly was discharged with a less than Honorable status. If you ask me, all of these points are quite relevant to the presidency because they are relevant to each man's own character.
Unremarkable service records would be irrelevant, but as time goes on, we're seeing that neither of these candidates' records were unremarkable. They were quite remarkable, and not necessarily in a positive way.
That's how I feel about it.
