Framing the Debate: what Clarke should do

Clarke is an American hero and he's doing some damage to the Bushies. But conservatives, despite their incompetence and obvious panic, are doing a phenomenal job of misdirection in focusing on Clarke's character. Or to be more accurate, focusing on just-so stories about Clarke's character.

I was shocked by two things yesterday, one in the media and a related conversation in my personal life. On one of the Sunday morning shows, they referred to a poll in which respondents were asked about Clarke's credibility. The wording was something like "Is Clarke motivated by profit or partisan interests?" I couldn't believe that the question was even asked and I really couldn't believe that fully 50 percent of Americans said yes. That's way beyond the core of conservative true believers.

And then I went to a social gathering filled with lifelong liberals (Seattle liberals, to boot). I'm the only political obsessive in the group, so several people asked me what I thought about the Clarke situation. And the first question they asked was some variation of the following: "Is he credible? Is he believable?"

Now, the White House may not be winning this battle, but they sure are doing a bang-up job of limiting the damage. Especially considering how bad their actual defensive resources are. If I were a GOP spinmeister and I heard those two data points, I'd be smiling right about now.

So what should Clarke do? Far be it for me to advise a master at this game, but I see one thing he could improve. Russert spent the first 35 minutes of his show yesterday repeating nasty character attacks on Clarke and having him respond. Clarke was great at turning each attack into an opportunity to turn the question back to the issues and the facts.

But he responded to the attacks, and that was a mistake. For instance, is he a disgruntled employee angry because he wasn't given the Number Two slot at DHS? Clarke gave several sentences about the circumstances when he applied for the job, and how he was disappointed, but no biggie, etc.

What he  should have done was turn the table on his accuser and on Timmy: "If Bill Frist has some evidence to support his contention that I was particularly angry at not getting that job, then I'd be happy to respond to that evidence. Does he have a memo in which I indicated my anger? Did he or anyone overhear a conversation in which I expressed any intent to exact revenge? Because if he's got no evidence to support his contention, then his baseless smear doesn't deserve a response."

THAT'S how to respond to these attacks. If the accusers have evidence to support them, then he should respond to the evidence. But don't dignify them with context or a story, no matter how plausible, because Clarke ends up on the defensive. As long as the GOP can launch these evidence-free attacks, and as long as the media plays them up, they are the ones framing the debate.