I talked to my husband last night, and got the report from the Midwest. He's been in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Since he's doing interviews about Vietnam, it's almost impossible for the subject of John Kerry not to come up. He keeps talking to lifetime, dyed-in-the-wool Democrats who simply cannot bring themselves to vote for this man.

Could Kerry have been marketable? I kind of think so, had the Democrats used the same strategy with him that they did with Clinton: what's past is past. Vietnam was over 30 years ago.

But by making "Vietnam war hero" his middle name, they have destroyed the possibility of Kerry winning.

NZ Bear maintains that the Swift Boat Vets issue will kill the Kerry campaign:

Up until now, Kerry has gotten a pass on his Vietnam time: the general impression has been "He talks about it too much, but he was some kind of war hero back in Vietnam". Now, there's an alternate perspective: "Not only does he talk about it too much, but he's actually a liar." From the 10,000 foot view of the average voter, the Swifties don't have to prove their case in a court of law for Kerry to take damage: they just have to throw a bit of doubt onto the lily-white image he's portrayed thus far. In that, they've already succeeded.

But it's not that bad: it's actually much worse. The biggest problem for Kerry is that the Swifties' attacks confirm what we really want to believe about him anyway. He's been so damned annoying about his Vietnam record that we secretly want to think the worst of him, and now the Swifties have provided a rational basis for that gut-level irritation that Kerry inspires when he blathers on about his war record. This isn't just bad for Kerry, it's disasterous: the amorphous negative that normal people have when exposed to Kerry's "leadership, courage, and sacrifice" / "three purple hearts" mantra now has a core of fact -- or at least, alleged fact --- around which to crystalize.

And there is the not-uncommon feeling that "real heroes don't blow their own trumpets."

But the Swifties are only part of it. The entire campaign appears to be predicated on the idea that military people are stupid, and you can flip them off, if you do it subtly enough. No Vietnam vet is going to find it easy to support a guy who came back and accused them of war crimes—and the more Kerry brags about his mini-service, the more people are going to be reminded of this.

And then the sloppy salute at the convention. The "reporting for duty" line. Very distasteful to veterans, current members of the armed forces, and their families. (Civilians are not supposed to salute, and even soldiers, sailors and marines don't do this out of uniform.)

Now we have the Swift Vets story, which as NZ points out doesn't have to be proven—their account simply has to be strong enough to create doubt in people's minds. NZ again:

Unless Kerry's campaign manages to completely discredit the Swifties --- which seems increasingly unlikely --- the campaign is over; Kerry is done. And after Election Day has passed, I expect that anyone looking backwards will wonder why in the world the Democrats ever thought making Kerry's Vietnam service a centerpiece was a good idea in the first place.

It wasn't a good idea at all. No matter how weak his Senate record—or his record as Lt. Gov.—marketing him on the basis of four months in Vietnam three decades ago was a terrible strategy.

There are a lot of people out there, many of them working-class and blue-collar folk, who would have loved to vote for practically any sentient being with a "D" after his/her/its name. And they are going to sit this one out.

It's not enough for people to hate Bush; you have to give them a positive reason to pick your guy.

It is over.

Posted by: Attila at 08:50 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 668 words, total size 4 kb.