I think the political calculus would have been quite different for Richard Clarke's revelations if Dean were the Democratic nominee. Read on for how I envision this episode would have played on the Dean channel.
First, I doubt Dean would have chosen to go on vacation for Clarke's introduction. I think Dean, for several reasons, would have chose to get in the thick of it early on and back up Dick Clarke. I also think the general subject of Clarke's revelations would not have focused so heavily on the administration's actions and concerns -- or lack thereof -- before 9/11; the focus would be on Clarke's position on the Iraq war and how closely it jibes with Dean.
Dean and Clarke share something that John Kerry can not boast of: a deep and early conviction that the Iraq war was the wrong road to take in the war on terrorism. Yes, yes, I know, Kerry has his heavily nuanced his position regarding Iraq, but this truth is still evident; Kerry can't credibly attack the Bush's Iraq fiasco nearly as well as a Richard Clarke or a Howard Dean could.
Howard Dean would have chosen to trumpet Clarke's banner as soon as Clarke hefted it up on 60 minutes with Leslie Stahl for all to see. The reasons are clear. Dean does not generally believe in holding back in any case -- for better or worse -- and would have seen Clarke's revelations as mana straight from heaven, bolstering his redibility as regards the Iraq war.
The partisan pitch of the administration's counterblast would have been ratched up, but I don't think this would have helped them. I think the media would have become obsessed with this top counterterrorism official, spanning the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations, a bonafied hawk if you will, backing up Howard Dean of all people. The talk of the town would be a reopening of the Iraq war debate and how Clarke's revelations have bolstered Howard Dean's argument. That is my guess.
Which leads me to the next thing I want to talk about. A little I told-you-so from a former Dean fan :)
Right now, John Kerry is being labeled as the biggest liberal, the most outlandish tax raiser, the weakest kneed cowering appeaser, by every wing of the Republican sloth parade. His own governor is hoisting his image up alongside Michael Jackson, making fun of his supposed botox treatment.
His record has done him absolutely no good in fighting off these attacks. At least not yet as far as I can see.
Not to say Kerry's campaign has done a bad job so far -- far from it -- I think Kerry has done modestly well. I'm just trying to point out the central truth of what we Deanies harped on before the election: in a certain sense it wouldn't matter who we nominated, they'd all be attacked in the same fashion. And the standard response? Kerry'd be able to defend against this better because of his favorable biographical sketch. Well, it hasn't happened. At least not that I can see. John's favorable biographical sketch will only be as useful as the media intends it to be. Which is to say, not much.
Now, who here still trusts the media to set the record straight or to draw from Kerry's biographical sketch when rebutting the contemptuous and false charges of the Republican attack machine?
