Only a fool would be so bold as to suggest at this juncture in the campaign that either candidate would be building such as a lead as to create a landslide. Color me foolish!
Two items come to mind this morning that may bring more attention to an issue that may contribute to a growing George W. Bush lead over John Kerry. Apparently, Douglas Brinkley, the historian who has written Kerry's biography, Tour of Duty, has called for the releasing of the 100 pages of Kerry's military record. Brinkley has been increasingly criticized by conservatives for writing a "hagiography" which according to Webster's is the "biography of saints or venerated persons". Apparently Brinkley is feeling the attack on his credibility as an historian.
In an almost identical request is Nat Hentoff's op-ed piece in the Washington Times, which is entitled "the opaque John Kerry". Hentoff makes the very clear argument that despite Kerry's campaign claims to the contrary, the full military record of Kerry has not been released. He goes on to wonder why the mainstream media has not made an issue of this.
I have to wonder the same thing when I look at AOL headlines this morning and one of the items is gaps in Bush's National Guard Service. Again this is being brought out as to highlight that Kerry served in Viet Nam but GW Bush didn't. That's fine, but why no reference to the 100 pages? What if anything is in the 100 pages that Kerry has felt the necessity to keep private?
My neighborhood paper was busy with a couple of Kerry pieces. The Globe magazine section has a nice puff piece with the temerity to list the who's who of the new Kerry administration. Written by John Sedgwick, the piece is notable for its first paragraph which talks about the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority which, "isn't exactly a pool of national-caliber political talent". What sewer department in the country is? We find that it is mentioned first because apparently one of the employees boasted to the executive director that "if Kerry was elected he was going to be named as an administrator to the EPA and is wife was going to be Kerry's chief of staff". According to Sedgwick one of the participants said "but can you imagine if Kerry heard that? He would be thinking "You have been totally indiscreet. We can't even trust you now." Since later on in the article it mentions that Mary Beth Cahill is likely to be named Kerry's chief of staff, we can assume that there is a Mr. Cahill and Sedgewick wanted to stick a dagger in him with the Kerry camp.
The Monday piece by Patrick Healy discusses the strategy behind using Kerry's war record as the primary platform of his candidacy. Once again the Globe completely dismisses the veracity of the Swiftvets, instead referring to the comments of the Kerry staff of charges of McCarthyism and charges this is the Bush family playbook of dirty tactics. No mention of the numbers, 256 of anti Kerry Swiftvets vs. the 9 who are on the trail with him.
It's a pretty interesting piece but it makes no effort to explain why Kerry is in deep trouble over the Swiftvet issues. One telling quote is that "Kerry did not respond" to the Swiftvet "smearing" of Kerry as "Hanoi John" in part because he felt that discredited veterans, not political equals, were making the attacks and they were not worthy of his response.
According to Healy, the Swiftvet attacks "have stunned many in the camp and have left Kerry frustrated that the media have not dismissed the charges as unsubstantiated".
The Kerry camp still believes they have "an extraordinary story of heroism to tell Americans" The Swiftvets insist he is an extraordinary serial embellisher who sold out his fellow servicemen.
