heh. we'll see. Clark's got a lot of bargaining power -- for example, more americans know who he is than know who is any other potential dem candidate (except Hilary).
As to the accusations about his conduct as a commentator during hte war: I will confess to having fully enjoyed Wes Clark's commentary during the war. My impression was: A) he was genuinely interested (perhaps too much for someone I'd was as president) in the tactical aspect. When the British crew broadcast the Um-Qasr fight live, I switched through the three US cable networks, and stuck with CNN, because of the commentators, ol' Wes knew what the hell he was talking about. When there was a shift change, he stuck on until the end of that battle. Like those of us who watched us live, he was genuinely interested in it. Now, that's not necessarily a good quality for an announcer.
I also heard the pentagon comments about "blow-dried generals" who were being counterproductive to the war effort with their criticism. The worst criticism I heard from Gen. Clark was that the US had a less than optimal number of troops on the ground. And, uh, yeah, he was correct in that assessment, and it's my guess you'd be hard-pressed to find someone beneath the pentagon who didn't want to have forces in theater.
Anyway, the character assassination began at least as early as the military action in Iraq, and probably before. Some folks will undoubtedly chime in with some interesting claims about his actions in Kosovo.
I don't know whether I'd want him as president or VP, but he does strike me as a guy with a brain and a mind of his own. I've reached the point where I view Republicans and Democrats as coke and pepsi, and I'm a beer drinker. If I have to choose, I'd want someone capable of making professional decisions without having to rely on a bunch of advisors -- who generally prefer fellatio to fidelity. But, in the words of our Supreme Court, "The individual citizen has no constitutional right to select an elector".
