George,

It is imperative that George W. Bush be defeated in November. The question is: which Democratic candidate is most likely to be able to send Bush crawling back to Crawford? My answer is: Wesley Clark.

First of all, most voters will be looking for someone who is qualified to fill the role of Commander-in-Chief. George Bush has managed to play that role on TV -- with excellent speech writers, tough talk and carrier landings. General Clark has played that role in real life.

Next, we need a candidate who can campaign effectively on primetime TV, and who has a clear, consistent and forward looking message. Again, that is Wesley Clark.

Being able to campaign effectively in primaries is not at all proof of ability to win the general election. Look at the track record of Democratic nominees since 1972 when the primaries became the major method of selecting delegates to the national convention. The winners of the primaries were: George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Only two of the six won the Presidency. George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Al Gore were very poor campaigners and did not have the qualities that most Americans were looking for. (Please don't bring up the technical point that Al Gore did actually win. Al Gore was part of an incumbent administration in a time of peace and prosperity. He was running against a mush-brained, word-mangling doofus. Gore should have won big, and he blew it.)

By the time nominations are decided in the early primaries, about 1.5 million Democrats and Independents have voted. Over 100 million voters vote in the general election. Thus, a tiny, unrepresentative sliver of the electorate decides who the nominee will be. If that nominee does not have qualities which will appeal to well over 50 million ordinary voters, he loses in November. When we vote in primaries, we must chose a candidate who will have broad appeal across an enormous electorate.

Yes, Howard Dean has attracted thousands of avid followers, many of them young. He has used the newly discovered potential of the Internet to great effect. That is the kind of support that helps win primaries. But the general election is won on an exceedingly larger stage where bloggers and meet-ups are swamped by primetime TV coverage and the debates. (By the way, Wesley Clark has also attracted a great many young and newly interested voters. He, too, has an avid following as demonstrated by the fact that he was the first candidate in Virginia to turn in petitions to place him on the ballot.)

Wesley Clark is a pro at handling TV appearances. Howard Dean often seems ill-at-ease in front of the cameras, and he does not seem to be getting any better with more experience. Examples are appearances on the Chris Matthews show. When Dean was on, Matthews managed to rattle Dean. When Clark was on, it was Clark who backed Matthews down! (That's the first time I've ever seen Matthews subdued!) I can't wait to see the debates between Clark and Bush. Without his ghostwritten and well rehearsed speeches, Bush will be like a deer in the headlights, and Clark will be sharp, clear and commanding.

In a recent national poll, it was found that only 19 percent of the electorate "dislike Bush a lot" (with an additional 3 percent saying they hated him). Thirty-eight percent indicated that they "liked Bush a lot". For those of us who talk politics mostly with fellow Democrats, that poll may be hard to believe. But it is from a reliable source. Thus, a campaign, such as Howard Dean's, that relies heavily on voters' having a strong dislike for Bush will not have the wide appeal necessary to win. Also, anger is not an attractive quality in a candidate.

Howard Dean has also made a lot of missteps in his campaign. He has the innate tendency to let his mouth move faster than his mind. As a consequence, he has to spend a lot of time correcting or explaining things he has said. Voters are looking for a candidate who is a firm, clear and reliable leader. Backing and filling to correct misstatements undermines voters' confidence.

Also, for a candidate who is supposed to talk straight and have strong convictions, Dean seems to hedge a lot. For example, he supports certain national gun control policies, but thinks gun regulation should be left to the states! He is for a strong social security system, but wants to lower the payroll tax that funds it. And then there are his religious convictions which he says he will turn on and off, depending on whether he is in the South or not.

Wesley Clark, on the other hand, seldom falters in stating his convictions and holds clear, consistent policy positions. (Yes, Clark made one misstep in the first week of his campaign by saying to a reporter that he would probably have voted for the resolution that empowered Bush to use force in Iraq. But Clark has been consistent in his opposition to the unilateral invasion of Iraq both before and after the fact.)

And finally, there are those who say Wesley Clark is not a real Democrat; he voted for Nixon and Reagan and is a johnny-come-lately to the Democratic party. I spent a lot of time last fall helping to write a statement of principles for the local Democratic parties. I have followed Clark's campaign carefully and everything he says, every policy proposal he makes, is as if he had read and internalized those Democratic principles. And he says these things with true compassion and conviction. Listen and watch him on CSPAN or wherever those who control our airwaves allow you hear him. He is truly dedicated to helping all Americans achieve a better future, and to working with other nations to build international trust and security.

David RePass (electronic mail, January 16, 2004)