So the story today, according to the NYTimes, is that if the Republicans fail to discredit Clarke then they at least hope to make this appear as a standard back-and-forth partisan fight, R vs. D.
One could take from this that our party should distance itself from the situation, let it play out, and avoid letting them call it "just Democrats in an election year." That way, Clarke's testimony can play out without the political baggage. That was my initial intuition, anyway.
But maybe that intuition is wrong. Maybe we want to give Republicans exactly what they're asking for: make this about partisan Democrats attacking the administration. Why? First, because that's what politics should be: real issues, not just the fanfare. And second, because Clarke is exactly the kind of guy we want associated with our brand name. Who's tough on terrorism? Democrats. See them? There they are in Clarke's camp. They'd have listened to him. Too bad Bush didn't.