Blumenthal was defiant Tuesday in responding to charges that he'd lied about being in the Vietnam War. The New York Times reported Monday on several comments he's made over the years, including this one from 2008: "We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam." After getting draft deferments for five years, Blumenthal became a member of the Marine Corps Reserve in 1970 and was stationed in the U.S. He never served overseas.
"On a few occasions I have misspoken about my service, and I regret that and I take full responsibility," Blumenthal acknowledged as he stood with other Marine veterans at a news conference. He explained that he'd "misplaced words" and insisted it was "absolutely unintentional" -- that he meant to say "during" instead of "in" Vietnam. Asked if he would apologize to real Vietnam vets, he would only say, "I regret that I misspoke.''
"Does anyone buy this?" asked National Review Online's Daniel Foster. "Once maybe, but Blumenthal's elisions and insinuations about his service are plural, and have taken different forms."
Politics Daily war correspondent David Wood wasn't buying it either.
"Being in war is a searing experience, not easily confused with not being in war. Combat veterans know when they've been in combat. People who don't go to combat know they missed that experience. You went or you didn't go, and the difference is not ever erased. Even if 40 years have passed," Wood wrote.
Newsweek's Eleanor Clift said the controversy is more about "misleading the voters" than about the Vietnam War, which is "long over and pretty much settled."
"It's about honesty, and that's a much bigger hurdle for Blumenthal to get over," Clift added.
Noting that even the left-leaning Chris Matthews, Ed Shultz and Bill Press from MSNBC had blasted Blumenthal, Commentary's Jennifer Rubin said it's "hard to imagine that Democrats will stick with him and go down with the man who lied about serving in Vietnam.
"If I were a betting man, I'd give Blumenthal pretty good odds of persevering," said The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen. Greg Sargent of The Washington Post also predicted Blumenthal would survive. Sargent reported on The Plum Line blog that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's strategy is to admit he made a few mistakes but stress the many times he's accurately described his military record.
Democrats also plan to attack his potential GOP opponent, Linda McMahon, whose campaign initially boasted about planting the story, then dropped the item from its website. That might end up hurting McMahon, who made her fortune running a pro wrestling empire, more than Blumenthal, some analysts said.
Check Out Past Columns
Gaffe-o-Rama: Boehner, Biden, Obama, Palin
When Larry King Ruled Cable News
Obama Era Good for Gun Owners
Poll Numbers Worst Yet for Obama
5 Reasons Not to Dump McChrystal
The Week's Worst Performances
Critics Call BP Fund a 'Shakedown'
More: The Point Archive
Time and the numbers appear to be on Blumenthal's side.
The state's Democrats must formally endorse their candidate by May 25 and certify the nomination by June 8. If they dump Blumenthal now, it would be hard to find a credible replacement.
Blumenthal's poll numbers were strong before the Vietnam story broke, which helps explain the continued support from Democratic leaders, noted Daily Kos blogger Barbara Morrill.
Two weeks ago, a poll indicated Blumenthal was leading the race by more than 20 points. But a Rasmussen Reports survey done Tuesday night showed him up by only three points. And the Cook Political Report has just moved the Connecticut Senate contest into the "toss up" column, saying, "Our early guess is that Blumenthal does survive, but that he is no longer the heavy favorite he was just 24 hours ago."





