The major fracture that Clark would heal is the Dem split over the War. Clark's cautious and questioning attitude toward the war might well give validity to the Democratic left who opposed it. Clark more than anyone, will be able to cast doubt on Bush's conduct of the War (for instance, claims like this have more authority coming from the mouth of a General) without being cast as a McGovern.

But, I think that the split between "new" and "old" Dems on other issues like economics and trade are unlikely to disappear.

The presidential election is 1 year, 2 months, and 8 days away--and it's "late in the day" to enter? That is sick, sick, sick.

In a better world, there would be no federal money before January, no delegates selected before May, and no conventions before August.

I assume Terry Mac's continued reign at DNC central has to do with pictures, but I'm not sure of whom.

Roger, the primaries that will select the nominee are five months away, but I've never seen anything wrong with the public having a greater opportunity to scrutinize the candidates for President. I see nothing "sick" about the time period -- why shouldn't we take our time in selecting the leader of the world's only superpower?

Anyway, what I see is a Democratic Party consumed with anger at a popular President but without a committment to winning. It reminds me very much of the GOP in 1996.

Has anyone figured out why President Clinton essentially fired Clark? That is, he was let go long before the normal term as NATO commander was up... why?

He was fired for nearly starting WWIII.

The Russians were in the process of occupying the Pristina Airfield. Clark ordered British General Mike Jackson to take it. Jackson refused, telling him "I'm not going to start the third world war for you". Clark pitched a fit, and the whole thing snowballed uphill to Clinton and Blair, in a massive political fight.

Clark lost.

I agree with Daniel that I would like to see two viable parties, but I sincerely doubt the Dems will coalesce around Wesley Clark. In many ways he is even more inept than Kerry-Lieberman-Edwards, etc. The measure of that is (if you think about it) that if Al Gore actually came into the race, he would win probably nomination handily. Clark is a tedious man who was an extremely pedestrian speaker on CNN, except when answering questions about whether he would run. Then he turned coquettish--and has remained so. The Democrats need someone of stature to be able to compete.

I want two viable parties, too--it's just that I don't want (today's) Democrats to be one of them. (The Democratic Party of Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson would be another matter.)

I have been wondering why the pro-business wing of the Republican party has continued to go along with Bush policies that are clearly not in their interests (see: tax cuts=faltering economy=lower profits, push for war=anti-American sentiment in Europe=falling sales for McDonalds and Coke). That Wash. Monthly article goes a long way to giving an answer.

Eternal war and deficits are not good for business (unless you are selling weapons...but that is a special case). It seems eventually CEOs will look around and realise they are being duped by their GOP lobbyists, and there will be a change. There are certainly structural barriers to that happening, most notable of which is that the main source for information on potential policies and their impact is the lobbyist. But CEOs are a saavy bunch, and they will not buy a damaged bill of goods forever. It is surprising they are continuing down this road though. Even with all the money they spend support for Bush is getting weaker. It is a huge gamble to put all their eggs in one basket, and it could really bite them in a** if power shifts back to the Dems. It is a mystery why there is not a big Dem project to counter this movement of K-street towards the GOP, it is not a hard case to make why they should try and remain above the partisan fray.

Ryan,

I see nothing wrong with the public having a long time to scrutinize the candidates for president either, but that's not what happens presently.

This far before the election, most people don't care and don't do much scrutinizing. The media coverage doesn't engage most people, partly because it is so early and partly because it is so much "horse race" coverage--who's ahead, who's behind--and so little substance--how would this person act as president?

Then in a short period of time, eight or nine months before the election, most of the delegates will be selected. Just as people start to get interested and start scrutinizing, the selection will be over.

"tax cuts=faltering economy=lower profits"

???

Which economists are you following? Paul Krugman??? This seems asinine.

Howabout "tax cuts=paying less to the government in taxes=more profits"?

As a progressive Democrat, I'm frustrated that your analysis is as accurate as it is. But it's not so much that the Democratic Party IS a collection of interest groups as that its CONCEIVES of itself as a collection of interest groups. Republicans began to pursue what I call "worldview politics" in the mid-70's and Democrats haven't caught up yet.

Which economists are you following? Paul Krugman??? This seems asinine.

Well, I do follow Paul Krugman, and while he can be out to lunch on a lot of things the man does know what he is talking about regarding economics.

Howabout "tax cuts=paying less to the government in taxes=more profits"?

That could be too...I was a bit flippant, I was referring to the Bush tax cuts, (especially the second round) which I believe have been especially counter-productive to economic stimulation. But in the end, you are right, I should not lay the blame on Bush for our nation's economic struggles. While the situation is not great, it is impossible to assign causality. Suffice it to say that his overall economic plan has not led to good times for the nation's economy and businesses' bottom-lines.

This far before the election, most people don't care and don't do much scrutinizing. The media coverage doesn't engage most people, partly because it is so early and partly because it is so much "horse race" coverage--who's ahead, who's behind--and so little substance--how would this person act as president?

It seems to me that you aren't complaining about the time involved in a Presidential campaign so much as the way the media cover it.

That's a valid criticism, but keep in mind that there are several important groups who do use the time to carefully scrutinize candidates. Besides the big donors and the relevant interest groups, the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire have ample opportunity to meet every candidate several times if they so choose -- and some of them do.

I certainly don't agree with our present system -- in which the rest of the nation has agreed to let two states choose it's Presidential nominees -- but that's what's happened. And the retail campaigning that occurs in those two states does focus very heavily on the issues; people will ask a candidate every kind of question imaginable (including what they're going to do to stop the UFO's from taking over).

So I think that "substance" does occur, but we just don't get to see it in the rest of the country.

I'd like to see a national primary day, that way the influence of just one or two states would be voided.

"I'd like to see a national primary day, that way the influence of just one or two states would be voided."

If you did that, then the whole thing would be controlled by the contributors.

I like plans to divide the states into groups of 4 or 5, and hold the primaries over a 10 week period. Smallest states first largest last.

"It seems to me that you aren't complaining about the time involved in a Presidential campaign so much as the way the media cover it."

I suppose I'm complaining about both :) But this far before the election, even if the coverage is very substantive, PEOPLE WON'T PAY ATTENTION.

There certainly is some value in having 2 small states start off. I kind of agree "And the retail campaigning that occurs in those two states does focus very heavily on the issues; people will ask a candidate every kind of question imaginable (including what they're going to do to stop the UFO's from taking over)."

But to then jump into a month in which everything is decided 7 months before the election is bad, bad, bad. Most people just aren't mentally and emotionally involved at that point. And no amount of media coverage or public service ads is going to change that.

Hey, why not let New Hampshire and Iowa have their little February selections? Just make sure that no other delegates are selected until May at the earliest. That will give people a chance to digest the two early state results, and to start caring.

This post totally misses the point. It isn't that the Democratic establishment hasn't found an alternative candidate, its that Dean is the establishment candidate.

Daniel Drezner wrote:

But let me close with a hypothetical question: if I'm wrong, then what explains Terry MacAuliffe's continuing reign as the Democratic Party chairman following the 2002 midterm elections?

Who would they have replaced him with?

I agree that the Democratic Party does have a pretty significant gap in national security issues and rightfully so. It’s tough to convince people that you’re serious about protecting the nation from our enemies when you have to cater to a base that is still protesting the Vietnam War.

Clark was always his own man and not a Clinton guy as some in the Army Brass and Republican Party activists parroting them make out.

Clark was fired for doing his job as SACEUR, not for "nearly starting WW3." Clark advocated the use of ground troops in Kosovo over the active opposition of then Secretary of Defense Cohen and most of the senior Army brass. I strongly suspect that the screwed up Apache deployment to Albania was part of that opposition.

Clark won approval of his plan despite that opposition by going around all concerned to President Clinton and, with the political support of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Clark's plan became the NATO plan.

The real threat of facing NATO ground troops forced Milosevic to fold.

Afterwards, Clinton let Cohen fire Clark. Clinton no longer needed Clark and letting Cohen do so kept peace between Clinton and the Pentagon.