Just stunning:

Heinz Kerry said she can't speak directly to the ads because she refuses to watch them. "I'm very proud of his service," she said. "I believe that discussions or attacks on his service undermine the peace of mind not only of Vietnam veterans but of those now fighting for their country. Let us hope that if they volunteer for service their reviews are not going to be so nefarious in the future."

As Jim Gerehty writes:

I do not understand it. I just do not understand it. How can Kerry's testimony in 1971 — "war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" — how does that not "undermine the peace of mind of Vietnam Veterans", but the Swifties' accusations specifically about Kerry do? How can one, indicting all members of the military except John Kerry, be acceptable, but the other, which focuses specifically on Kerry, be an unacceptable attack on all veterans?

James Lileks' take on how the Kerry camp has responded to the Swift Boat Vets perfectly sums up their tone-deaf tone:

John Kerry wants to be president because he is John Kerry, and John Kerry is supposed to be president. Hence his campaign's flummoxed and tone-deaf response to the swift boat vets. Ban the books, sue the stations, retreat, attack. Underneath it all you can sense the confusion. How dare they attack Kerry? He's supposed to be president. It's almost treason in advance. . . . Inconsistencies are irrelevant, because he's consistently John Kerry. And he's supposed to be president.

Or as the headline in Australia's The Age said when the first Swift Boat Vets' ad aired/went online:

"Anti-Kerry ad mars presidential campaign" Has any previous presidential candidate--especially one with baggage like Kerry's--ever thought he could just walk in without any resistance?