I want to give John Kerry some advice with regard to the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.

Let it go, John, let it go.

I am almost starting to feel sorry for the guy.

For the first time in months, Kerry has slipped behind W in a national poll.

The L.A. Times poll had it Bush, 49; Kerry, 45.

And trust me, it's not because of the Swifty guys.

It's because of Kerry.

You see, W was being skewered by 527 ads. (For an explanation of exactly what a 527 is, see the story on page 2A).

Before the Swiftys, virtually all the 527s were Democratic-leaning - MoveOn.org, The Media Fund, America Coming Together - and financed in large part by wealthy individuals (most notably George Soros) and labor unions.

These liberal 527s called W a traitor, a coward, a deserter, Hitler, a war monger and all manner of other vile stuff.

So what did W do?

He ignored them.

The liberal 527s were running ads all over the place and W just basically ignored them.

Along comes the Swiftys, the first notable conservative 527. They ran ads in just two battleground states. (That's all they could afford.)

They call into question Kerry's Vietnam record and Kerry basically flips out.

At every appearance he's defending himself. He even went so far as to have a bunch of U.S. senators draft a letter and then send former U.S. senator, Vietnam vet and amputee Max Cleland to W's ranch to deliver the letter.

Kerry and his camp say W is behind the Swifty ads, which is patently absurd, and are demanding that he make them stop.

So what is the net effect?

Kerry has managed to keep the Swiftys at the top of the hour on CNN for days. He's giving them publicity they could never in their wildest dreams have imagined.

And of course this gives W the chance to look presidential.

The reporters ask him about the Swifty ad.

He says, "That ad and all 527 ads" should be banned. He says Kerry served honorably in Vietnam and should be proud of his service.

OK, that's pretty plain.

But no, Kerry says that's not good enough because W didn't specifically tell the Swiftys to stop making mean ads. Kerry's starting to look like a whiner.

And I'm not so sure too many people, including Democrats, are really thrilled about the notion of banning political speech, anyway.

I, and most Americans, I believe, think you should be entitled to your opinion, no matter how wacky it is.

We have slander and libel laws to protect people when things get out of hand, but public figures like W and Kerry have a pretty heavy burden of proof in those proceedings.

So Kerry and all his spokespeople keep trying to hang the Swifty ads on W and I honestly don't think the public is buying it.

Seems to me Kerry's quarrel is with the Swifty guys, not W. But apparently, he doesn't see it that way.

If I was his adviser, I would tell him and all the other Democrats that would listen to get off the Swifty issue - yesterday.

Which brings me to another question.

I agree that Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. He should be proud of that.

But Vietnam service seems pretty irrelevant to me. It was four months out of the guy's life more than 30 years ago. I can't imagine why he chose to make that the centerpiece of his campaign.

Didn't he know that when he came back from Vietnam and started hanging out with Hanoi Jane Fonda that it probably teed off a bunch of other Vietnam veterans?

Didn't he know how divisive and polarizing the whole issue of Vietnam remains today even after all these years?

Couldn't he see the potential for the Vietnam issue to overshadow his entire campaign?

Guess not.

Again, if I was a Kerry adviser, I'd tell him to get off the Vietnam issue.

And really, how relevant is Vietnam service as it relates to candidates for president?

Well, I would say not very relevant, but don't take my word for it.

Here's what a certain senator had to say about it from the floor of the U.S. Senate on Feb. 27, 1992.

Let me set this up for you.

Vietnam veteran Bob Kerrey was seeking the Democrat nomination for president in the primary election.

There was this governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who also was seeking the nomination.

Kerrey, speaking in Atlanta, criticized Clinton for his lack of service in Vietnam. Basically called him a draft dodger.

So the next day, Sen. John Kerry had this to say.

(This is kind of long, but it's really good. Please bear with me.)

"Mr. President, I also rise today - and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity - to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

"I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

"What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

"There exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

"What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

"What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.

"The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

"Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

"Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

"But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

"I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

"We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country."

Great speech, Mr. Senator.

First the guy eloquently implores candidates to keep Vietnam out of presidential politics.

Then he makes Vietnam the centerpiece of his own campaign.

There you have it.

The ultimate flip-flop. [[In-content Ad]]