Decision '04: The last quote clearly is a veiled attack on Sen. Kerry and does seem particularly harsh, if not crude. All the same, it is a symbol of what he is up against as discussed in a recent profile. As the profile notes, his basic philosophy is that "I have the experience ... I'm ready to lead America." A problem with this sentiment is that experience, willingness to lead, and being the most qualified to do so is not always the path to nomination or election. His inability to gain traction, connect with enough voters to gain momentum, and signs his campaign machinery is in trouble, all suggest he has an uphill battle ahead of him.

As the article notes: "Mr. Kerry seems astonished that though he paid his dues, the nomination may go to a man who has not done so, at least in his eyes." A major problem appears to be that when he sometimes tries to attract attention, he sometimes seems to be pandering or at the very least not being true to his true nature. This includes campaign photo ops while hunting, riding a motorcycle on the Jay Leno show, talking slang (and cursing) in a Rolling Stone interview, and attacking frontrunner Howard Dean is suspect ways. One notable example that got him some criticism was when he attacked Gov. Dean's record as a balancer of budgets, suggesting basically this would threaten Medicare and other programs, but leading some to wonder if fiscal responsibility is a bad thing. Also, his attack of Dean's comment that the capture of Saddam Hussein doesn't really make America safer appears to just add fuel for the Republicans if Dean wins the nomination, while exaggerating the erroneous nature of the remark.

[The ability for such statements to be twisted is a valid point, but one that can be made without ignoring the capture alone really doesn't do too much to help our security. The supplied link also discusses how Rep. DeLay performed a wonderful feat of twisting the facts on the talk show circuit yesterday. Sunday talk shows leave something to be desired these days.]

----

The right of first refusal. I'm with Clark on consultation and on building the U.S. alliance in Europe. But first refusal? That's tantamount to Howard Dean's view that we should seek the "permission" of the United Nations before military action. Permission?

The right of first refusal. I'm with Clark on consultation and on building the U.S. alliance in Europe. But first refusal?

-- Andrew Sullivan, spouting the usual "the Democrats want to make us into a bunch of weenies that have to ask mommy before doing anything" line. As noted here, Sullivan actually confuses what "the right of first refusal" means; Clark actually basically agrees with him that Europe should not be given a veto. The ability to twist words is there all the same. Both Dean and Clark (along with the rest of the Democrats) basically want the United States to work with the rest of the world, consult with them and seek their support before going off half cocked.

[Update: A nuanced discussion of what Clark might have meant is put forth by conservative leaning bloggist (who's just dying for Nader to step in and ensure a Bush victory) Eugene Volokh.]

Hopefully, though it's an uphill battle, the Democrats will find a candidate that will be able to carry out such logical policies. All the same, the fact that someone has "experience" doesn't mean he will be the best person for the job, a job that includes a bully pulpit sort of component people have long expected to be part of the mix. On the other hand, too much bully and not enough care will get one in trouble as well, and Dean better keep that in mind (another extreme case is Sen. Lieberman, who takes his anti-Dean, reformist Democrat, and moralizing just too far to be a viable candidate, even if calling him "Bush-lite" is unfair in various ways).

Ah, the shoals one must avoid when running for president!