WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 (UPI) -- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark's anticipated entry into the Democratic presidential race is filled with uncertainties. But if he does well, he may rapidly bury the White House hopes of several long-running rivals.
It was particularly ironic -- and a rare tactical false move -- that shock frontrunner former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean courted Clark for coming on board as his vice presidential running mate. For if Clark does well, he could become the rallying point for the conservative, big-money "stop Dean" forces in the Democratic Party.
Party insiders say former President Bill Clinton, whom Clark served with distinction in Bosnia and Kosovo, urged him to run. Clark already has modest but significant financial war chest of around $1 million, certainly enough to give him some momentum amid cash-strapped rivals. And with supposed party heavyweights underperforming against Dean's remarkable run, he at least has a chance of pulling away much of their remaining support.
Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., looks likely to be the first -- and rapid -- victim of Clark's entry into the race. Clark looks set to strip Edwards' remaining support faster than a star linebacker can rip a football off an unprotected quarterback.
Edwards ran as the traditional centrist Southerner who, according to the political experience and conventional wisdom of the past 40 years, is the only kind of Democrat who can hold the South for the party in a national election, as Lyndon Baines Johnson did in 1964, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Clinton -- at least enough to win -- did in 1992 and 1996.
But Edwards' campaign never got off the ground and now Clark, if he does well, will pitch his appeal to the very audience Edwards was supposed to wow, but didn't.
Like Edwards, Clark is a Southerner. He hails, in fact, from Clinton's own native Arkansas, a state that would have put Al Gore over the top even without Florida in 2000 but then went to the Republicans instead. He has an impressive military record and that counts in the intensely patriotic South. He is a moderate centrist, as Edwards was. With Clark in the race, Edwards looks to be toast. But then, he already was.
Clark's entry is also very bad news for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and therefore indirectly may turn out to be very good news for Dean. Kerry, a highly decorated war hero from Vietnam, was expected to do well in the South for that very reason. But as we have noted before in UPI Analysis, his very liberal standings on many issues makes him in reality a highly suspect candidate to stop Dean in the South.
Kerry can easily be painted as a Democratic big spender. Balanced budgets and prudent fiscal management are core Dean appeals. Kerry supports gun control. Dean is the National Rifle Association's darling. And while Vermont has always been an individualistic, maverick state with a strong suspicion of big and central government -- themes that play well in the South -- Kerry's Massachusetts has always been seen down there as bleeding heart liberal wonderland. Therefore, if any centrist "stop Dean candidate" is to gain credible traction in the South and Southwest, Clark has far better credentials to do it.
If Clark does well, he could also apply the deathblow to the already struggling presidential campaign of former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo. Gephardt looks to be trailing Dean badly. The economic issues Dean campaigns on have pre-empted Gephardt's own. Gephardt has been forced to position himself to the right of Dean to try and woo centrist Democrats. But if Clark can pull them in, that will siphon off hi last potential reservoir of significant support.
Is, then, Clark the magical "stop Dean" figure that will make the Democratic Leadership Council cheer and Republican master strategist Karl Rove sweat in his sleep, as the current fashion in political prognostication has it? Possibly, but unlikely: it is far, far too early to say so, and he still has so much to prove.
Political skills in national campaigns are very different from those required even as a political general. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower had them in abundance and even Zachary Taylor and William Henry Harrison had more than a few. But that is no guarantee that Clark does, too. He certainly cannot present himself as a conquering hero, as they all did.
Winfield Scott in 1852, George McClellan in 1864 and Douglas MacArthur in 1948 and 1952 were classic examples of generals whose achievements or resumes and personal demeanor made them look certain to win presidential elections, but all of them fizzled out disastrously instead.
Clark is a highly effective stump speaker at intimate meetings and to larger audiences on policy issues. That is not a bad start for a major political career. Ronald Reagan started out that way.
It is obviously too soon to rule Clark out but far, far too soon to anoint him either. One thing can be said with some confidence: whether he does well or fails badly, we probably will not have to wait long to find out.
