Over at Calpundit today, Kevin asked us to imagine the attack ads Rove will concoct for Howard Dean. Ok. I'm a Dean supporter but I can easily imagine some items that would be included:
:
- He's going to raise your taxes
- He's gonna let them gays take over
- He would let dem terrists kill us all
- He don't support our troops
I imagine the ad talking points, by the way, voiced by "ordinary Americans."
Now, part of Kevin's premise was that Clark wouldn't be as vulnerable on national security. I don't know about that. I could pull the following items and make a pretty nasty ad:
- Videotape of Clark at the AK fundraiser praising each member of the Bush team
- Text of Clark's article celebrating the fall of Baghdad in ecstatic terms
- Text of criticisms voiced by fellow officers, including the famous, "I wasn't going to let him start WWIII"
- Clark statements supporting gays in the military.
In addition, I can't imagine there aren't some CNN excerpts from General Clark's appearances during the war that could be used badly.
My point is this: We all know, more or less, how Dean will be attacked. One of the reasons that Dean's massive number of active, enthused supporters is important is that attack ads will have to be counteracted, at least partly, by person-to-person contact.
But what if Rove is able to neutralize Clark on national security by alternately saying things like, "He supported the President's actions and is critical now just because he wants the power" and "He has problems that might make him an unstable leader."
If Rove can neutralize Clark on national security, then Clark has to compete on domestic issues. And since he has no domestic record (I do respect his experience overseeing bases, I'm just saying that it might not translate for the public), he is potentially weaker than Dean in that area.
So is Clark really more electable than Dean?