political graveyardsDemocrats are gloating over new attacks on Bush's Vietnam-era service in the National Guard, resuming the old cry: Draft dodger, draft dodger, draft dodger. Signs all point to a new offensive from the Kerry campaign on the "issue." Kerry apparently regards this as "hitting back." Kerry is a combat veteran, Bush pulled strings to stay out of Vietnam.
Okay, folks, let's review. Bill Clinton avoided military service in Vietnam. He ran against George H.W. Bush, a combat veteran, and won. Then he ran against Bob Dole, a (grievously wounded) combat veteran, and won. In both instances, voters overwhelmingly chose the candidate who avoided service in Vietnam, rejecting the person who served in combat.
How effective a campaign message is "I was in combat, and my opponent avoided service in Vietnam"?
How long is the Kerry campaign going to fuck this corpse? Haven't they noticed that it's cold and stiff? Haven't they noticed that they've already done the "draft dodger" thing, and they're losing?
Yes, the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth campaign damaged Kerry. That doesn't mean -- does not mean -- that similar attacks on Bush will damage him. Why? Because Bush has never bragged about his National Guard service, never pumped it up, never played it as a campaign issue. He has acted like it doesn't matter. (For good reasons, really.)
Kerry rode into the Democratic National Convention with his swift boat crew, saluted at the lectern, and reported for duty.
One has presented his Vietnam-era service as the reason (really, the reason) why he should be elected; attacks on this candidate's Vietnam-era service speak to the way he's presented himself -- to who he thinks he is, and who he says he is.
The other candidate has said that, hell yeah, I was drunk until I was forty. Attacking him for youthful irresponsibility is not...going...to fucking work.
We might as well skip the rest of the campaign. How fucking tone deaf can these folks be?