No. John Kerry. I was rereading Joe Klein's book, Politics Lost, which was written long before Obama decided to run for president, when I came across the above description of Kerry's campaign.

Kerry, of course, was a terrible candidate. A droner. Obama is one of the best candidates there ever was. And he is in a far better position to sell the same approach Kerry wanted to but couldn't.

But what will Obama do when HE gets swiftboated? If, Kerry-like, he ignores the catcalls his reputation will suffer as Kerry's did when he followed a high-moral-ground approach. If, in contrast, Obama goes after the attackers he'll risk sacrificing the moral high ground that is the basis for his candidacy. This will leave McCain free to ride the high moral ground. Because McCain is not likely to be swiftboated (Dems don't do switboating), he will have a natural advantage over Obama.

Those who think Obama has already faced an onslaught lack imagination. (Maureen Dowd, this means you!) What Obama has faced thus far is nothing to what he would face in a general election. So he hasn't yet had to shape a tactical response to a campaign of UNRELENTING attacks.

What might he do?

My guess is he would do what he has done in response to Clinton's attacks, which is to 1. publicly take the high ground while 2. surrogates suggest that racism is behind the attacks. The trouble with this approach is that it can't be sustained without race becoming the dominant issue of the campaign. This is problematic. Obama's chief appeal is that he is taking the country beyond race.