Paul M. Weyrich
Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2003

But presidential candidates have also always fascinated me. I can't say I am a student of that select group, yet I have followed them with great interest.

I can't help but wonder what makes a person think that he could be President and preside over as remarkable and complex a place as perhaps has ever existed, save for the Roman Republic.

I recall in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running for president -- George H. W. Bush and a host of others were also running -- when Senator Larry Pressler, R-S.D., announced his candidacy very late in the game.

Hardly anyone noticed when he got in the race, and hardly anyone noticed when he withdrew. But what would cause a not very well known first term Senator, from a very small state population-wise, to think he could be President.

Obviously, ego was involved. Ego is always involved or else there would be no candidates. But what else? I know former Sen. Pressler and he is not pure ego. Who was telling him that he could win -- or even accomplish some strategic objective -- by being in the race?

Thus, Gen. Wesley Clark, the newest entry into the Democratic field of presidential candidates hoping to replace George W. Bush, fascinates me.

At least one national poll has Clark defeating Bush. Clark tops all of the nine previous Democrat candidates nationwide. That has to be a product of dissatisfaction with the existing field, since prospective Democrat primary voters can't really know much about him. They do know he is a four-star general, and this is at a moment when the military is more highly regarded in this country than at any time since World War II. And they know he isn't the other candidates.

They surely do not know that he considered himself a Republican until fairly recently. They can't know how much praise he has heaped on a man named Ronald Reagan. I doubt that the Howard Dean fans know that Clark's opposition to the war in Iraq is of very recent origin - like perhaps the week before last.

It is doubtful that any Democrats know that he had some little-known involvement in the Waco debacle of Attorney General Janet Reno's making during the first year of the Clinton presidency. I also wonder just how many Democrats -- or voters in general for that matter know that knowledgeable insiders in the media regard Clark as a stand-in for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton? Their belief if she decides to run; he will step aside to become her running mate.

Although Clark seems to have touched a political nerve in some way nationally, it is Iowa and New Hampshire and perhaps South Carolina that will shape this race. In Iowa, former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont is neck-and-neck with Congressman Dick Gephardt.

For Gephardt, Iowa is a must win. He is from next-door Missouri. If he loses Iowa he likely will have to fold. Clark is way down the list in Iowa, in the same poll that has him ahead nationally.

In New Hampshire, Dean and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts both are seen as being next-door neighbors. Right now, Dean is substantially ahead of Kerry. This could be a must-win state for either one of them.

Clark is fifth in New Hampshire in the same poll showing him leading nationally. Senator Joe Lieberman, who was Vice President Al Gore's running mate, is right now doing well in South Carolina. Clark again is a little better here than in Iowa and New Hampshire, but still not immediately competitive.

Of course, things can change radically in four or five months. My point, however, is that even though Clark might be able to defeat Bush nationally (although given the numbers of non registered voters in the poll sample which produced that result, there is reason to doubt its validity), he will have to do well in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, to get that opportunity.

In the presidential races I have observed, it is the candidates who have intensity who often end up with the nomination of their party. Barry Goldwater had that sort of intensity in l964. The problem was he was not able to shake the extremist label pinned on him by his opposition. He had the worst Republican showing since Alf Landon in 1936.

Ronald Reagan had similar intensity on his side, but he was able to overcome all the nasty things his opponents said about him. It was believable that Goldwater might be reckless because he often acted the part. It was not believable that Reagan was extreme, because he came across as they gut next door.

Reagan won two landslide elections.

George McGovern had incredible intensity among his supporters and was able to get the Democrat nomination in 1972. The Nixon campaign exploited all of McGovern's weaknesses from his difficulty in selecting a vice presidential candidate, to his very left wing voting record, to his whiny voice. McGovern had the worst showing for a Democrat since Herbert Hoover defeated Al Smith in 1928.

Now comes Howard Dean. He seems to generate the same sort of intensity that McGovern did, although McGovern thought of himself as leading a cause far greater than himself. Dean does not. Still, he has something lacking in other candidates.

Can Gen. Clark generate intensity and passion as a candidate? Especially among Democrat primary voters who are much further left than the electorate as a whole? The jury is still out but unless he can, national polls to the contrary, he could be an early casualty of the 2004 season.

(Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.)

Editor's note:
Own a Piece of Authentic Ronald Reagan History - Click Here Now!

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

2004 Elections