That's what Dick Morris says happened in the 2004 election:

The defeat of the networks in the war of CBS versus the bloggers is one of the most dramatic illustrations of this new political dynamic. All of Dan Rather’s men could not put over a forgery of Bush’s National Guard record on America’s bloggers, who eventually forced the CBS anchor from his perch atop our politics.

The way a handful of Swift boat Vietnam veterans with only a few hundred thousand dollars among them were able to defeat the entire propaganda apparatus of the Democratic Party and nullify the effect of a four-day national convention with its extensive panoply of stars and massive media coverage is another example of the emerging people power.

a handful of Swift boat Vietnam veterans

It is well known influencial members of the Republican party financed those ads. They even managed to dig out Nixon's stooge from yesteryear from his closet to smear Kerry again. It seems high-ranking members of the Republic party cannot stand decorated Vietnam War veterans in politically relevant places, be it Kerry, McCain, or that disabled former Democrat Senator.

Karl Rove always hits his opponents on their strong sides, he did it vs McCain, he did it vs Kerry. It remains to be seen if he will go suddenly go truly religious and repent on his death bed like his former mentor.

US politics are ridden with sorry examples of negative campaigning. Signs of a decadent democracy slipping into demagogy. Will tyranny come next as predicted by Plato?

It is well known influencial members of the Republican party financed those ads.

What's your point?

Did you expect "influencial [sic] members of the Democratic party" to do so?

The point remains that they did it on a shoestring, compared to Moveon.org, George Soros, etc.

In the old days, no one would have listened to them, despite the fact that Kerry could only muster six of his seven boatmates to vouch for him (has anyone investigated how much they were paid?) whereas hundreds of others who served with him (yes, it was not necessary to be physically on his boat to serve with him), including his entire chain of command, testified in these ads and the book against him. Cry about a measly couple hundred thousand bucks from "influencial members of the Republican party" all you want, but those facts won't change. They didn't get the money--it went toward publicising their concerns about him becoming Commander-in-Chief.

Sorry for the typos Rand, but since English is not my first language that was hardly unexpected. At least I have an excuse for that ( yes it is a lame excuse, but it is my line and I'm sticking with it :) ), contrary to your President. I still remember that old Vietnam war veteran's speech against McCain on a Republican party rally, with Bush standing two steps behind him on the podium. Then Bush cynically saying on Larry King live he had nothing to do with it. Leopards don't change their spots.

Yes, Soros also injected a lot of money on campaigning vs Bush.

Two wrongs do not make a right. The Swiftboat campaign was *not* a miracle of the "little people" vs the "big people". At best you can claim this for the blog depuration of the CBS story with the fake anti-Bush military report.

Campaigns should be fought on issues, not personal mud slinging.

Sorry for the typos

There's no need to apologize--we all make typos. [sic] is just an indication that the quote is exact, so I don't have to apologize for typos, or accusations that I'm attempting to make you look bad by forging them...

Campaigns should be fought on issues, not personal mud slinging.

John Kerry made his Vietnam service an issue, when he stood up and saluted at the convention, and said "Reporting for duty." There is nothing wrong with people who knew him and served with him in Vietnam pointing out that his record was not what he made it out to be, particularly since that seemed to be his sole credential for office (since he didn't seem to want to talk about his twenty-year Senate record).

At least they didn't attempt to pass off fake documents to support their case. They only pointed out that the documents that supported Kerry's might have been faked.

I disagree with you that John Kerry made his Vietnam service a campaign issue from doing a military salute, just like I would disagree considering that Bush made his children's problems with liquor an issue because he showed up with them at a convention. Is it that hard to respect someone's personal life and keep to the relevant issues at hand? This applies to both sides. Unfortunately, both dominant parties in the USA have grown so similar in policies, it seems personal attacks are their only way of providing a differentiator among candidates.

I disagree with you that John Kerry made his Vietnam service a campaign issue from doing a military salute, just like I would disagree considering that Bush made his children's problems with liquor an issue because he showed up with them at a convention.

Good lord, does this sentence really make sense to you? Did George Bush say "I'm here to be your president because my daughters drink?" That's what he would have had to have done to make his daughters' drinking habits equivalent to Kerry's parading his Vietnam record as his basis for being elected.

He saluted. He got the boatmates that he could to stand on the podium beside him. That was his argument for being president. To believe otherwise now is to either be delusional, or to rewrite the history of the 2004 campaign.

Is it that hard to respect someone's personal life and keep to the relevant issues at hand?

If by "personal life" you mean Kerry's Vietnam record, then no, since he made it the centerpiece of his campaign. And if by "personal life," you mean his very public testimony before the Senate, in which he accused his fellow veterans (though he only served four months, leaving after getting three scratches, when most of his colleagues served for a year) of all being war criminals, then no, sorry, that's fair game, too.

Have you become my new pet troll here?

Campaigns should be fought on issues, not personal mud slinging.

What color is the sky in your world?
Campaigns are fought to win.

I disagree with you that John Kerry made his Vietnam service a campaign issue from doing a military salute, just like I would disagree considering that Bush made his children's problems with liquor an issue because he showed up with them at a convention.

Unbelievable linkage. I was a Massachusetts resident. Look, in every political speech JF Kerry ever made in his career, he brought up references to Vietnam. It became a standing joke it was SO contrived. His service was the cornerstone of his campaign. That made it a legit target. The over 200 fellow Swift Boat servicement who knew the arrogant fellow simply testified to their experience with him.

-p (former Kerry campaigner)

Perhaps if people in the USA stopped giving notice to such irrelevant subjects, such as candidate personal life, the name of their pet dog, their teeth, etc, then Kerry wouldn't waste campaign time on it.

Kerry made a bad campaign by focusing on his personna (which was not that interesting) instead of the issues at hand.

Kerry FORCED his personal life on his constituents. Consistently referred to Vietnam. Got what he deserved.

Can you tell me Kerry's specific position on Iraq other than he "had a plan"? No, you cannot. That was his problem. He was a failed candidate. Believe me, as someone who knew him, he was not a "deep" thinker.

Were he a true patriot, in defeat he would now advocate the specifics of his "plan" to help his country. Here's a clue. He had no plan.

If you want to talk about silly things politicians do while trying to look supportive of the military, I could also talk about Bush's flying around piloting jets over carriers with banners saying "Mission Accomplished" or rubber Thanksgiving turkeys.

If you didn't like Kerry that much, why did you campaign for him anyway? Last I heard there were more than two candidates.

Nice attempt at diversion of subject once your point was refuted.

I campainged for Kerry decades ago, not in this campaign.

Bush didn't fly around with a banner reading "Mission Accomplished", he stood under a banner reading "Mission Accomplished". And, of course, the turkey that Bush held for a photo op was real, not fake; that lie was invented by leftist "journalists" suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) -- President Bush made a landing aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln Thursday, arriving in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking after making two fly-bys of the carrier.
Moments after the landing, the president, wearing a green flight suit and holding a white helmet, got off the plane, saluted those on the flight deck and shook hands with them. Above him, the tower was adorned with a big sign that read, "Mission Accomplished."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/

There he is in his flyboy suit. So dynamic and hands on uh? Please note I said he flew around in a jet (check) over a carrier with a banner (check, it was in the carrier's tower). Not that he flew carrying the banner.

Yes, those evil leftist journalists of the Washington Post and their nonsense turkeys:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A33090-2003Dec3¬Found=true

But as a small sign of the many ways the White House maximized the impact of the 21/2-hour stop at the Baghdad airport, administration officials said yesterday that Bush picked up a decoration, not a serving plate.
Officials said they did not know the turkey would be there or that Bush would pick it up. A contractor had roasted and primped the turkey to adorn the buffet line, while the 600 soldiers were served from cafeteria-style steam trays, the officials said. They said the bird was not placed there in anticipation of Bush's stealthy visit, and military sources said a trophy turkey is a standard feature of holiday chow lines.

Duly noted. It was a prop, albeith not made of rubber.

Your sentence is ambiguous, GodZirra, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose this to be a misinterpretation on my part, and not a misstatement on yours.

As for the turkey, you're only four months behind the NYT, Oxygen Destroyer.

Gojirra, none of your inane (and for the most part, inaccurate and demonstrably ignorant of both American politics and history) comments have anything to do with the subject of this post. Please stop trolling.

How is military service record "personal life"?
How is public testimony to congress "personal life"?

The fact is that Kerry had no coherent position on the single biggest issue of the campaign, the War on Terror. He ran a terrible compaign. He was completely unable to respond to the swift vet charges, had a laughably incompetent revolving door campaign staff, and was trying to dodge more than 2 decades of anti-military senate votes. He got CREAMED in the popular vote, and lost decicively in the electoral college.

As for your argument that the swift boaters were somehow republican shills because they used money from republican donors, it doesnt make logical sense. If we can accept no argument that is distributed using funds from the opposition then there is NO possiblity of an issues oriented election. Just who IS supposed to pay for ads? Personally I find it inspiring that some guys with (relatively speaking) pocket change and powerful message were able to counteract billionares spending a couple hundred million trying to elect an incompetent senator from liberalland. The Truth is a powerful weapon.

MSD

Incidentally, our friendly Oxygen Destroyer isn't the only one still spreading the "fake turkey" meme.

If it weren't for the Internet and the blogosphere, we might think that they were telling the truth.