Pretty please?

Dear Wes Clark supporters,

Will you please--pretty please?--reign in the vitriol and hyperbole just a bit when you attack Howard Dean? If Clark and Dean are running mates, in whatever order, you and I will be at the same MeetUps.

The Dean camp and the Clark camp could be an incredible ground team together. But not if we hate each other. Sideways comparisons of Dean to Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell and, ahem, William Jennings Bryan are not unforgivable (tortured, yes, but not unforgivable), but I'm worried about where you're headed here. (Did you guys have anything to do with this? Just wondering. [See update below.])

A scorched-earth approach is a very bad idea. Both of us are going to have to walk on that earth after you're done. Howard Dean has shown he can handle whatever it is his opponents want to throw at him. I'm not saying you have to speak no ill. That's not what I'm worried about.

I'm worried about us. Whether it's your man our mine who wins the nomination, I want to to like you enough to work with you when this is over.

Thanks,
Brian

UPDATE: A Clark supporter points out that there is no evidence that Clark (who, by the way, I like) is involved with the noxious attack ad I mention. True. The ultimate origin of the ad is somewhat mysterious, but there is evidence of a link to Gephardt and Kerry supporters. While the Clark campaign has not, to my knowledge, condemnned the ad, as Clark supporter Kevin Drum hopes it will, I know of no evidence of a connection.

I have to say, judging by the response of Clark supporters to the above open letter, you guys are much, much cooler than the Kucinich supporters who harangue me. (For the record, I also admire Dennis Kucinich.)

A valid criticism I have received is that when it comes to attacks, the Dean campaign takes the cake, so who am I to lecture? True, Dean supporters probably hold the record when it comes to emotional reactions to criticism, and I should have noted that. Our hands are hardly clean. When I saw him in Los Angeles, Dean himself said something like, "We don't need a Republican to be the Democratic presidential candidate," clearly referring to Clark. It's not nice to call people Republicans, so to a certain extent the physician should heal himself.

However, in my defense, my hands are clean. I don't attack other Democratic candidates. I didn't do it even when Dean was behind. Way behind. I've never penned anything like a piece that places another Dem candidate in the company of these folks:

Ann Coulter has called liberalism treason; Bill Hastert hasn't. Jerry Falwell sold videos arguing that Bill Clinton killed Vincent Foster; Bob Dole didn't. The division of labor used to be clear: movements provided passion and self-sacrifice at the cost of recklessness and a certain loss of perspective.

If the "Dean is a crazy ideologue" accusations get thrown around frequently and viciously enough (accompanied by a palms-out, "Hey, I'm only saying..." posture or not), it could poison what should be a cooperative relationship between two camps who, relative to Bush's vision for the future, really believe in the same things.

I agree with Bill Clinton that Clark would make an excellent president. Or vice president. I'll be happy when the time comes to work to get him into either of those offices. But I'd rather not have to do the extra work of convincing my fellow Deaniacs that we should forgive prior statements that came closer and closer to calling our candidate a nutball.

A fine case can be made for Clark without going there.