Catching up on the news of the last week, it's been interesting, in a depressing sort of way, to watch the administration's response to Richard Clarke's book and public appearances before the 9-11 commission and on 60 Minutes, Meet the Press etc. The subject is getting a lot of attention in the mainstream media, and nothing less than carpet-bombing coverage in the blogosphere. That being the case, I have nothing new to add (this horse is truly being flogged to death) just a few quick observations:
- What in heaven's name is the administration thinking? Who's in charge of their response? If this really came down from W himself it's going to bring back the jokes that he's too stupid for the job. Their strident rhetoric has been completely over the top and only served to make them look desperate (did Dick Cheney really say Clarke was "out of the loop" on terrorism?).
- The White House may have picked the wrong dude to dis. From what I've seen of Clarke so far, he's like Shaft, a bad mother******. He's calm, reasonable, and completely unflappable. I've yet to see him asked a question he didn't seem completely prepared for (whether you agree with his answer or not) and while he may be something of a camera hog, the administration's "slime the messenger" approach only makes Clarke more in demand. Paul O'Neill (and to a lesser extent John DiIulio) made similar criticisms of the White House's dysfunctional policies, and in areas where the administration is far more culpable than the 20:20 hindsight of 9-11. But neither of them had the steely-eyed dedication of Clarke -- O'Neill, even with the kid gloves treatment he gets in Ron Suskind's book, just can't coming across as naive and a bit odd -- and both wilted under pressure from the WH. The attacks on Clarke, methinks, are only fuel for the fire, and let Kerry cut into Bush's credibility on national security without explicitly going negative.
- As often happens, Kevin Drum has the best take on what the White House should have done. A calm, understated response that would have left Clarke with a mere 15 minutes of fame and his book mired far off the best seller list, garnering attention only from those who already oppose everything Bush does. Instead Clarke's headed for celebrity and is raking in royalties by the truckload. Now you've go to believe there are dozens of other administration insiders pondering a quick "tell all and cash in" strategy. (BTW, congrats on the new gig Kevin! Well deserved, and your always high quality commentary is even better now!)
- Even if the administration wises up and flies right, this is already a serious losing issue for them. Over 600,000 copies of Clarke's book are in print, Condi has to swear on her mother's grave, and the Bush-Cheney joint appearance before the 9-11 commission is going to get parsed down to the phoneme. Even if they have nothing to hide, it will almost certainly raise more questions than it answers, so this could simmer all summer.
All in all, Rove and company have forgotten the most basic rule of presidential politics: a third of the people are going to support you no matter what you say, a third won't support you in any event, it's the other third, the ones in the middle, that you have to plan around. If I was open-minded about who I was going to vote for in November, I'd be reading Clarke's book, wondering about the White House's histrionic response, and asking some pretty serious questions.
UPDATE 4/1/04: Catching up on my reading, I see that Kevin has another excellent post about Clarke, quoting liberally from a Washington Post profile that appeared over a year ago. Take the time to give this a read. The White House has definitely picked a poor fight.
Comments