The general's inexperience

Let's take a few minutes to discuss retired Gen. Wesley Clark's candidacy for president of the United States and what it means to you.\nIf these were normal times, the short and easy would be: nothing. It means absolutely nothing. If it meant any less, it'd be sucked backward into an alternate universe where black is white, up is down and Bill O'Reilly waits his turn to speak.\nThese aren't normal times though. These are the weirdest of times.\nAnd Clark's candidacy does apparently mean something, because according to a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, he would narrowly defeat President Bush if the election were held now.\nHey, that's not too bad for a guy who's only been in the race since Sept. 17. \nSo, what can possibly explain this electoral phenomenon? What is it exactly that makes Clark such an alluring candidate?\nWell, we know he was part of the U.S. Army for 34 years, but has never held elected office. He was a four-star general, and from 1997 to 2000, the NATO supreme allied commander, a nice boost to his foreign policy credibility.\nFrom his many appearances as an analyst on CNN during the war in Iraq, we know he's a photogenic, handsome guy. \nWe know the Clintons love Clark. That's a plus.\nWe know Clark has an interview about the time he spent in Vietnam in the November issue of the popular men's magazine Maxim, long regarded in journalism circles as "the Newsweek equivalent of women wearing almost nothing."\nAnd Clark, like all of the candidates, has many Web sites tracking his every breath, all of which ask you to perform your civic duty by giving him lots of money. \nIn addition, you can buy assorted stupid campaign items, like my personal favorite: the Draft Clark 2004 barbecue apron. (Remember, voters: nothing says you truly support a candidate like a white apron with barbecue sauce smeared all over his name). \nClark's problem is, even though we know all these things about him, we don't have any clue about where he stands on the issues. People didn't even know what political affiliation Clark was until a few months ago.\n(For the record, "I am a Democrat.")\nOn his Web site, Clark does have an essay called "The 100 Year Vision," but it avoids giving any specifics. Right now, the closest you can come to learning how Clark feels is analyzing his collection of frank excerpts from interviews he has done over the past few months. \nThe aim is to make him look like a no-nonsense straight-shooter, but he's flip-flopping already.\nFrom "Meet The Press," June 16, on gays in the military: "I'm not sure that I'd be in favor of the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. I supported that policy. That was a policy that was given. I don't think it works."\nFrom CNN's "Crossfire," a month later, on gays in the military: "I think the military and the chain of command have to decide that."\nHe told NPR, "At this time, I'm inclined not to support" oil drilling in Alaska, and he told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, on the issue of the economy, "We're in the Keynesian-liquidity-trap range."\nAh, yes, the old "Keynesian-liquidity-trap" vote-for-me line. Right now, voters like his military title and his image, but no one knows how long that will last without any policies. Clark's candidacy will seem more credible once he has matured politically.\nAnd maybe they should do something about those silly aprons.