I've been reading so many comments about how what happened 30 years ago doesn't matter. Except that in Bush's case, and indeed even in Kerry's case, it does.
The reason it matters is simply because the President is Commander in Chief. He is responsible for the armed forces. In other words, he is working for the same "company" now that he worked for 30 years ago. It is pretty clear now that W went AWOL, and that he gamed the system, and that he never fulfilled his responsibility to the "company."
If I worked on a receiving dock and ran a drug ring out of it, then went away to business school and came back as CEO 15 years later, shouldn't I be fired when the truth is discovered?
When you are CiC, your past actions in the military matter. While I do not think that his pulling strings to get into the champagne unit merits de-election, the conduct as described in the Salon article is unacceptable. Gaming the system to escape the military and defying orders does not set a good example to our troops. If the CiC can get away with it, others will reason that they can try it too. At the very least, it is a morale buster because the CiC got away with it while others in the military must play by the rules. If the W's tarnished military record is allowed to de-moralize the troops or encourage the shirking of orders, it will necessarily make our country weaker. That is why the President should now be disqualified from office. That he lied about it is only more damning.
Oh yes, and how does Kerry's service matter? If any of those allegations had been true, and it's pretty clear that they are not, then the effect that that would have on the military might were he to become commander in chief affect my vote as well. I would have to consider it against other qualities in the man, and try to figure out whether the alleged actions then are an indicator of more recent behavior. But this is all moot of course.