The primary strategy (at least until his story began to implode this week) of the Dems this year was to put forth a decorated Vietnam vet, and attempt to contrast him with a president and vice president who hadn't served in that war. The hope was that they could set up his record as sacrosanct, and unquestionable. For the most part, until the Swifties came along, the Republicans went along with the deal ("No one questions Senator Kerry's service to his country in Vietnam").

But here's a problem with that argument that occurred to me the other night. The stock response from the Dems is "He volunteered to go to war, he gave his blood for our country, he fought bravely, he earned commendations."

But unfortunately, he's not the only person of whom all that could be said. Clearly, his four-month resume, by itself, even if accepted at face value, will not be sufficient to launch him into the White House. Now that his war stories have been severely damaged, the real battle in the fall will be what he's done since the war, and I don't think that it's going to be very pretty picture.

[Update at 12:30 PM PDT]

Am I the only one that sees nothing in this story to justify the headline "Kerry Campaign Unfazed by Bush Attacks"?

First of all, these aren't "Bush attacks." They're Swift Boat Vet attacks. And there's nothing in the behavior of the Kerry campaign that could be characterized as "unfazed."

And of course, trial lawyer John Edwards urges the president to violate the law, by coordinating with a 527:

"This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush," Edwards said at a Democratic rally. "We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is. ... We want to hear three words: Stop these ads."

And the Bush spokesman makes the excellent point that the only campaign that's denigrating the service of Vietnam veterans is the Kerry campaign (in their attacks on the Swift Boat Vets). And speaking of denigrating vets, check out this latest outrage from Pat Oliphant.

[Update a few minutes later]

No, of course I'm not comparing John Kerry to Benedict Arnold.

Sheesh.

Benedict Arnold was a competent military commander.

If plan A was to rely on 4 months in Vietnam and plan B is to rely on 20 years in the Senate, a period 60 times longer, what does that say about his Senate record? Not much. Now he is touting tax credits and cheaper drugs but not saying how to pay for them. More "tell them what they want to hear" and hope it works.

It's a shame about Oliphant. Back in the '80s and even into the '90s he was pretty evenhanded.

I remember that from 1980 through 1988 he had a boxing theme about presidential matchups. First, we saw Reagan iades holding back Nancy who wanted torip Jimmy a new one, while Jimmy laced boxing gloves on a decidedly unhappy Rosalynn.

In 1984 a Republican elephant dusted ashes off his cigar onto the head of Maulin' "Mouse" Mondale. And four years later Bush-soon-to-be-41 was holding off a desperately (and futilely) swinging Dukakis in a boxing ring paved with teeth.

<sigh> Those were the days. But I guess for some, sanity is finite.

I LOVE THE SWIFTIES! NOT AFRAID TO TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE DEMS AND THE MEDIA ON THEIR MAJOR BS ATTEMPT TO HOODWINK AMERICA.

BUSH SHOULD GET SOME BALLS, COME ON TV TOMORROW FOR AN IMPROMPTU PRESS CONFERENCE AND SAY, "MY OPPONENT HAS BEEN FACING SOME PRETTY TOUGH CRITICISM FROM A GROUP OF VETERANS AND HAS ASKED ME TO MAKE THEM STOP. WELL, I COULDN'T MAKE THEM STOP EVEN IF I WANTED TO, AND NOT ONLY DO I NOT DENOUNCE THE SWIFTIES.... I READ THE BOOK LAST NIGHT, AND QUITE FRANKLY I BELIEVE THEM MORE THAN I BELIEVE JOHN KERRY."

HE WOULD WIN THIS ELECTION BY A 60/40 LANDSLIDE.

Does it matter to any of y'all that the Swifties have been utterly discredited by those who were there, by their own previous words, and by the historical record? The fact that a man suffered 7 years as a POW does not excuse him from lying today. If the President fails to denounce their character assasinations then it will appear that he condones them, that he believes he is better off campaigning on smears than on his record.

Does it matter to any of y'all that the Swifties have been utterly discredited by those who were there, by their own previous words, and by the historical record?

It might matter, if it were true. So far, most of the discrediting has been on the official Kerry story.

The fact that a man suffered 7 years as a POW does not excuse him from lying today.

Not that I expect you to have a coherent answer, but what is it, exactly, that he's lying about?

"by those who were there"

See, it all depends on what "there" means. By their lights, no one can witness a traffic accident unless they were in the car. Oh, and by the way, if your surname is "Gardner", you are not "there" even if you are on the boat.

And nowhere does anybody even deny that the "historical record" consists of after action reports written by Kerry himself.

Nor do I see the word 'evidence' in your post. The Swiftees say that there could not have been enemy fire if the boats remained, drifting, for a couple of hours WITHOUT CASUALTIES and WITHOUT DAMAGE FROM ENEMY FIRE. Sorry about the caps thing, but the Kerry side will not address the above point.

One of the reasons you guys make such lousy debaters is that you stop looking at the facts as soon as they become uncomfortable for your side. This leaves you open to embarrassing posts like that above, unless of course you can provide any details whatsoever that account for what Kerry's fellow officers are sayings, as opposed to speculating about their state of mind.

INSTEAD OF JOHN KERRY STANDING UP AND ACCUSING PRESIDENT BUSH I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMEONE WITH THE TEMPERMENT OF CHRIS MATTHEWS SCREAM AT HIM QUESTIONS THE WAY MICHELLE WAS SCREAMED AT ON HARDBALL.