General
Clark sounded very Presidential in an interview on CNN last
month (I believe) and very Democratic on domestic issues, where
his real test would lie -- even though the Democratic positions
are sounder than those of the GOP, in both a factual and usually
a popular sense, it of course takes good communications skills
to make the point that they are indeed better positions and
that, as a military man, he understands their impact on the
lives of everyday civilians. General Clark must have had
excellent communications skills to advance through a system as
complex as the military and to command a multinational
organization such as NATO. His GOP opponent would not be so
blessed with the powers of speech.
And Gen. Clark is very photogenic -- I believe
more charismatic than Sen. Kerry, perhaps a bit less so than
Sen. Edwards -- not as "vulnerable" or as "aw shucks"
in persona as Mr. Bush, which can be both a plus and a minus.
The biggest asset of Mr. Bush is the "Band of
Brothers" phenomenon: "Comrades in arms" rarely turn on
each other, having leaned on each other to get through
traumatic, life-and-death experiences. Mr. Bush's leading us
through the aftermath of 9/11 has obviously made an indelible
impression upon the electorate.
The biggest liability for Mr. Bush, if we
consider "voting the man" (if voters simply vote their
pocketbooks, the Democrats with even half a plan should have
nothing to worry about), is that he has always had "a chip on
his shoulder" -- that must never be overlooked or forgotten -- it is George "Dubya's" Achilles' Heel (similar,
although not identical, to the "aloof" reputation of his
father, who was ultimately judged as President to be out of
touch with the common people, suffering through a recession).
If we don't get out of this cycle of war and
recession/lackluster economic performance and if Mr. Bush is
seen as too rigid in his conservative ideology, "compassionate" or not, to do anything substantial about it,
then he will become incrementally vulnerable to the "drunk
with power" image that has brought down more than one leader -- the people ultimately distrust anyone with too much power
for too long, even if they have other reasons to like him.
General Clark could well make a sober
alternative, if the electorate hadn't by that time turned
against all things military -- an occasional phenomenon in
American politics, since the very beginning.
Gen. Clark is a very intriguing possibility,
particularly because he is a fresh face at a time when the
Democrats desperately need something new.
Notes: At least in recent history, the vast
majority of Presidents and Presidential nominees, of both
parties, have come from executive, not legislative, branch
positions -- vice-presidents, governors, even a general. Of all
the Democrats currently (or soon to be) in the running, only
former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean fits that description
(so would Gen. Clark, which is one reason I was so intrigued by
the possibility -- although if military affairs are the
deciding issue in the next Presidential election, the current
Commander-in-Chief will probably prevail, particularly because
the GOP is seen as more effective on security issues). Even
though Dean is far behind in the polls, at this early stage that
might be construed as a plus -- I believe the leader at such an
early stage seldom goes on to win the nomination. Although an
outspoken champion of most Democratic Party positions -- and,
as a physician, a natural leader on the hot-button issue of
healthcare -- Dean would have to overcome Democratic
activists' opposition to his pro-NRA stands, even though they
would help him win states in the Midwest, South, and Rocky
Mountains that Gore lost. Politics vs. ideology -- the eternal
debate.
Please also see my
later essay, with responses and replies, about General
Clark as a Democratic Presidential candidate.
