The past week or so has proved to be the first complete media battle of the 2004 presidential campaign, with John Kerry's experience in Vietnam being debated by political reporters and pundits alike. True, there have been a number of skirmishes so far on issues ranging from the War in Iraq to education, the environment to unemployment; in most of these instances, however, at least one side has held some punches, waiting for a later moment to fully engage the competition. It appears as though the Swiftboat "controversy" has become the moment each campaign was waiting for, and both sides have been willing to go to great lengths to show that they can win at this relatively early juncture.

The other night I wrote about how Kerry's filing of an FEC complaint against the Bush campaign would prove to be an extremely shrewd move as Kerry proved he is no wimp; by laying down the gauntlet on the Swiftvets ads and thus upping the ante in the "Bitch-Slap" battle (as Josh Marshall so eloquently puts it), the Kerry campaign put the Bush team in an extremely tough situation. As a result, he won the meta-debate by proving he could and would defend himself against vicious attacks by Bush's shrouded allies (unlike Dukakis and Gore).

This strategic victory is not only important in proving John Kerry's strength, however; it is also offering to move the debate into friendly terrain for the Democratic nominee. While it's true that Kerry's war record is not perfect and his later anti-War stances may prove unpalatable to some, Kerry clearly possesses the upper hand in the debate over President Bush in their respective Vietnam War records (or lack thereof).

The Bush campaign has attempted to shift attention away from this debate by saying that what happened 35 years ago doesn't really apply to the current presidential election (even as they goad their cronies into attacking Kerry's war record). The Kerry campaign has not fallen for this obvious trap, however, and they will not shy away from the comparison now that the shadow-GOP is launching a head-on attack on Kerry.

Some might say that the Kerry campaign is not succeeding in this first full battle of the campaign because his support among veterans has declined since the Democratic National Convention. This line of reason is highly flawed. John Kerry does not need to win the veteran vote nearly as much as much as George W. Bush does; veterans and their families have been a major part of the Republican base for decades, and the fact that Bush is polling at about 50% among them (even if he is defeating Kerry by double digits in this category) does not portend well for the President. What is more, if Kerry is able to gain close to half of the veterans' vote in November, I cannot envision a scenario in which Bush is reelected.

Even more important than the veteran vote, though, is how the veteran issue is perceived by the vast remainder of the American public. For instance, polling has indicated that Kerry's Vietnam service means significantly more to the general public than it does to the veteran community (which might seem counterintuitive). Although some questions remain about John Kerry's Vietnam service in the minds of a few partisan pundits, most real Americans believe that his service was commendable and admirable. As a result, when they hear scurrilous attacks on John Kerry's highly decorated war record, they are generally offended.

On Sunday, former GOP standard-bearer and WWII veteran Bob Dole coldly stated on CNN that John Kerry did not deserve his three Purple Hearts, and that Kerry "never bled that I know of." Such malicious attacks are not accepted by most Americans, even if the partisan base loves to hear them; more clearly, Americans will accept negative campaigning only to a certain extent, at which point the attacks backfire.

To give an historical example of this, at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, Ann Richards said that George H. W. Bush was born with a "silver foot in his mouth." Although many Democrats loved that line, most Americans were turned off by the purely mean-spiritedness of it, and that accordingly did not help Michael Dukakis with the independent voters. Dole's comments, as well as those of the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth," though embraced by rabid Republicans, will inevitably hurt Bush by turning off the few remaining undecided voters.

John Kerry must continue to exude strength in the coming days and weeks if he wishes to win the White House, and the Swiftboat vets are playing right into his hand by reminding Americans that he is a true hero. What is more, these slanderous attacks--whether from Vietnam veterans or Bob Dole--are only making the American public more sympathetic to John Kerry's cause. Though the war for the Presidency has yet to be won we are yet in the midst of this decisive battle over Vietnam service, the advantage thus far clearly belongs to John Kerry. If the campaign continues in this direction for the next 70-some days, Kerry should not be too worried about his chances.