One of the silliest aspects of the Democratic scramble for the 2004 presidential nomination is the many rank-and-file references between Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Gen. Wesley Clark.

As a onetime lieutenant, the front-running Kerry seems intent of portraying himself as something of an underdog in military discussions because Clark wore four stars and Kerry a single bar.

Meanwhile, Clark has seemed to lord it over Kerry, indicating that because his military rank was far higher, he is better qualified on a lot of levels. Fact is, the contention seems condescending and is not likely to win anyone over to the Clark cause.

Both men have seen combat and both have conducted themselves with distinction in their terms of service. It is all well and good for both to point to their personal records in this field without worrying about who outranked whom. Clearly, Clark had a higher officer standing and more experience in the military. That does not in any way detract from the record of Kerry, who needs to get over his “junior officer” complex and focus on what he has to offer rather than how much lower on the totem pole he was than his opponent. He took another route in public service.

In this difficult current wartime status for the United States, many Americans are appreciative of office-seekers who have seen duty in the armed forces. There are not many such people anymore. This is a a strong point for both Kerry and Clark. But it should not be the major issue, only one of many.

Kerry gains nothing by acting as if he is patronized by a general, and Clark only weakens his stature by even hinting that his military standing gives him a leg up on Kerry.

Enough of this pulling rank. Both men should have more to offer people whose votes they are trying to attract.