Steve over at No More Mister speculates on why the message just doesn't seem to penetrate.

A big reason that it's harder to run against Bush '04 than against Bush '92 is, paradoxically, the fact that what we're charging Bush '04 with is so appalling: We're saying that he shed U.S. soldiers' blood in an utterly unnecessary war while pulling resources from the fight he should have been fighting -- that he took his eye off the ball and effectively suspended the fight against the mass murderers who should have been our prime target.

People can accept that their president, their commander in chief, their daddy, might be, you know, a bit of a screw-up -- that he might be tooling around cluelessly in a cigarette boat while the economy tanks. It's harder for most people to accept that he might duck into the Situation Room and send soldiers to die in the wrong country.

I think a major reason this is true is the level of ridiculous, shrill GOP hyperbole about the Clenis -- y'know, "they" murdered Vince Foster, cheated on land deals, assassinated Ron Brown by shooting down his plane, etc. The American people have been desensitized to claims of this nature. They're seen as de rigeur in an election year and, if not nakedly political, at least worthy of initial discredit.

There must be a tipping point somewhere, though -- the Nixon phenomenon -- which Steve alludes to:

Unless there's an unambiguous smoking gun tying the administration directly to whatever is making America afraid, I don't think Bush's failings and shortcomings will matter -- most Americans will cleave to him if they're afraid. We aren't the Spanish.

How many esteemed public servants must step forward before the message sinks in and popular support for Bush collapses? It's impossible to know, but if the Clarke thing doesn't really damage Bush's numbers (two months from now, let's say), and the 9/11 report similarly doesn't, I'm not sure that I'm all that optimistic either.

...it helps when the GOP doesn't march in lockstep. Thanks, Senator:

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said he believes the White House has to respond directly to Clarke's allegations rather than question his credibility. "This is a serious book written by a serious professional who's made serious charges, and the White House must respond to these charges," he said.