WASHINGTON– In some corners of the Democratic Party, the last week felt like déjà vu.

Republicans attacked their party’s vice presidential candidate for his military record – and the attacks were reminiscent of those directed against Senator John Kerry two decades earlier during his campaign for the White House.

But Democratic strategists who witnessed Kerry’s attack say the political landscape has changed so much since 2004 that they don’t expect the attacks to have the same impact.

“It’s a totally different world,” said Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Kerry’s 2004 campaign.

Former President Donald Trump’s campaign responded to the nomination of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as the Democratic vice presidential nominee earlier this month by attempting to dissect his military career. Walz served in the Minnesota National Guard for 24 years, but the Trump campaign criticized him for using vague language in describing how he carried a weapon in war and when he left the service.

Kamala Harris’ campaign has pushed back against the attacks, but some Democrats worry that Republicans may succeed in portraying Walz’s military service as a liability. Others accused Republicans of trying to “sideline” Walz, a reference to the 2004 campaign and a sign that that campaign is still relevant.

In the summer of 2004, Kerry’s campaign was caught flat-footed by attacks on whether the presidential candidate deserved his numerous awards as a speedboat commander during the Vietnam War. Kerry received three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star.

In 2004, America was embroiled in two wars—in Iraq and Afghanistan—following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, had made his military service a central theme of the hotly contested presidential campaign, so much so that he began his nomination speech by saying he was “reporting for duty.”

Republicans tried to undermine that selling point by raising questions about his service in the Vietnam War. An outside political group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, led the anti-Kerry campaign, spending millions of dollars on hard-hitting television ads. In one ad, men who had served in Vietnam questioned Kerry’s leadership and heroism, as well as his fitness to lead the country; another ad criticized Kerry’s participation in later antiwar protests.

The ads were effective.

“I remember being in Ohio and hearing this ad. And I called my campaign headquarters and said, ‘Guys, I just heard an ad. And if I had heard that ad, I wouldn’t have voted for me,'” Kerry told NPR in 2018.

Some on Kerry’s campaign team wanted to respond more forcefully, others wanted to take a more cautious approach, fearing that focusing on the attacks would give them a boost.

The campaign fought back in the press but spent little money on expensive television advertising to address the controversy.

This fear, according to former Kerry advisers, led the public to begin to doubt the candidate’s ability to handle national security issues.

Chris LaCivita – a top adviser to Trump’s campaign – was one of the key Republican operatives behind the “Swift Boat” campaign. When Democrats compared the attacks on Walz to those on Kerry, LaCivita posted on X that the 2004 allegations “have never been refuted.”

“There are two things you don’t do: you lie about the medals you’ve received and you lie about whether or not you’ve been in combat. Those are the two big sins. And he’s guilty of at least one of them,” LaCivita told The Associated Press last week.

Several veterans who served under Kerry denied the allegations in 2004. Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for Bush’s 2004 campaign, said last week that the “Swift Boat” allegations were “almost entirely false.”

The Trump campaign has sought to criticize Walz’s service in a similar way. Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance, has led the charge, accusing Walz of lying about his record. Vance, a Marine veteran, also accused Walz of abandoning his unit before it was deployed to Iraq.

The Harris-Walz campaign has pushed back against the criticism. A campaign spokesperson told the AP that Walz “slipped up” in 2018 when he tried to make a stand on gun control by saying he had carried weapons in the war. Walz did not serve in combat while serving in the Minnesota National Guard.

In March 2005, during his first campaign for Congress, Walz announced he would run despite a possible mobilization that could send his troops to Iraq. According to the National Guard, Walz retired from the service in May 2005. Three months later, the Army issued a mobilization order for Walz’s unit, which was sent to Iraq in March 2006. The Harris-Walz campaign has rejected the Republican narrative that Walz retired to avoid deployment to a war zone.

Walz rose to the rank of Command Sergeant Major, but because he failed to complete certain coursework before retiring after 24 years in the National Guard, he retired as a Master Sergeant, a lower rank, for pay reasons.

It’s unclear how effective these Republican attacks will be. Democrats who worked on Kerry’s campaign said they are unlikely to have much impact because so much has changed since 2004.

The main reason: the campaigns now have a lot of money, making it easier to fight back.

In 2004, Kerry and Republican President George W. Bush took advantage of public funds, each receiving $74.6 million from the government while barring private donations. That decision, Devine and others say, handcuffed a campaign that wanted to focus on its preferred message.

“We lived in a world with limited resources and had to decide whether to go on the air now or later,” said Steve Elmendorf, Kerry’s deputy campaign manager. The Harris-Walz campaign “does not have those limitations.”

Public financing is a thing of the past, and Harris’ campaign raised a staggering $310 million in July. The Democratic campaign, aided by President Joe Biden’s fundraising efforts before he stepped down, is expected to raise well over $1 billion.

“If we were to respond to these attacks in paid media, we would have to spend money that we would need in October,” Devine said.

The strategists pointed out further differences in today’s environment.

While the Swift Boat attacks came from an outside group that relied on advertising, Republicans have attacked Walz primarily on social media and in interviews. Such broadsides may reach the Republican base, but not the independent voters who will decide the election.

In addition, unlike Kerry, Walz is not the presidential candidate. Voters tend to focus on the leading candidates, something Trump himself has noticed.

And then there’s the issue of Trump. Could attacks on Walz’s 24 years of military service come back to haunt the Republican standard-bearer? The former president was criticized for avoiding military service because he reportedly suffered from bone spurs.

Despite the differences between the two campaigns, Democrats should take to heart a lesson they learned the hard way, veterans of Kerry’s campaign say: They waited too long to counterattack. Mark Mellman, Kerry’s pollster, said Democrats should be especially concerned about attacks on Walz’s integrity, a key selling point for his candidacy. “To the extent that it damages the image,” Mellman said, “that can be quite problematic.”

___

Associated Press writers Meg Kinnard in Cincinnati and Michelle L. Price in New York contributed to this report