No it is not.
The only important think in politics is how what the office holder or candidate does effects the voter.
When Clinton is accused of screwing an intern or Bush is accused of skiping National Guard meetings, it has no bearing on the outcome of electionis or approval ratings.
If Bush has an economic plan and the Democrats don't it doesn't even matter if Bush's plan doesn't work. If after 911 it looks like Bush is trying to protect voters and Democrats say I don't need protection, Bush wins....even if we get hit here in the USA again.
These are the biggest group of ignorant Democratic candidates in my memory.
The swing voters that decide every election, vote on how the candidates actions and proposals effect them. If trashing candidates worked, both Roosevelt and Truman would have been defeated. Jimmy Carter served in the navy as a naval officer. Ronald Reagan made movies during World War II. What elected Reagan was his plan to fix the economy when Carter had no plan. The democrats trashed reagan for wanting to use hte military when he made movies during WWII. It did not help Carter a single vote.
What elected Clinton over war hero Bush 41, was "It's the economy stupid!" Hero stuff won't make the house payment fixing the economy will.
What wins elections are issues that directly effect the lives of the swing voters.
Attacking Bush unfairly about military service only motivates his base. The center does not care.
Some ob Bush's base is angry with some of the more liberal things Bush has done. Everytime a far left Demorat unfairly attacks bush, the liberal just ups the turn out of the Republican base.
Any one who has studied politics knows that what Clark and his dumb buddy have done is counter productive to their cause.
He made them under orders from his commanding officers, as he was enlisted. He wasn't allowed in combat because he was blind as a bat and wore contact lenses. He was 4-F, but insisted on being inducted anyway.