Too much of the pundit analysis of Gen. Wesley Clark’s campaign seems, to me, focused on the wrong questions.

First is all the chatter over whether he is or isn’t popular with the military establishment. Like most personal opinions of people, it all depends on whom you ask. Everyone agrees that Clark was one of the best and the brightest of his generation.

Like another controversial general, Douglas McArthur, he’s one of the few who graduated at the top of their West Point class and had the leadership skills eventually to wear four stars. (It is interesting to note that both were “canned” by politicians.)

Clark lost his post as supreme allied commander Europe a petty two months early for very basic and political reasons. First, he disagreed with the politically popular theory that advocates waging war with “stand off” weapons rather than sending in ground troops. Clark wasn’t the only one to question that strategy in Kosovo, and the debate continues over this administration’s prosecution of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Second, Secretary of Defense William Cohen wanted to replace Clark with Gen. Joseph W. Ralston at the end of Clark’s tour. The problem was that Ralston’s prior assignment ended four months before Clark’s tour was up. A four-star can only keep those stars if he’s in a job requiring that rank, otherwise he would revert to major general. So replacing Clark early solved the minor logistical problem of where to park a four star general and sent a clear message that Cohen had bought the Air Force argument that air power wins wars and you only need ground troops as a police force. We’ve all seen how well that is working in Iraq.

Finally, like most ambitious and talented leaders who disagree with their superiors, Clark was too vocal and too visible. As another Gen. Clark of WWII fame was fond of saying “The higher you climb the flagpole, the more your ass is exposed.” Wes Clark suffered an early loss of command as a result of that phenomenon, in an action that many in the Pentagon thought was unfair and undeserved.

The second knock on Clark is that, while he leads the pack nationally, he’s lagging in Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa is coming down to a shoot out between former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.). New Hampshire will settle the score between Dean and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). It is the next round of primaries and caucuses that will determine whether Sens. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) or Clark will face the most likely winner of round one, Dean. The Clark campaign would be happy with fourth place in Iowa and third in New Hampshire, which is just about where most polls have him right now.

As the campaign moves beyond Iowa and New Hampshire, Clark’s message has a lot of appeal. He is painting a vision of an America where people are confident of their physical and fiscal security. He’s on a mission. He’s the “can-do” candidate. He’s smart and he’s confident and we should trust him to sort out the details later.
Does that sound familiar? Arnold Schwarzenegger swept to victory in California without a single detailed policy. His message boiled down to: “If you’re happy with the way things are, keep your current leaders. If you want to change this state, then join me.” It is not hard to get that message into a 30-second commercial. Clark, who is arguably the best of the Democratic field on TV, can easily do the same.

Maybe we California expats give what happens there too much importance. But it does set trends. All the Hollywood and Valley Girl jokes aside, California is a microcosm of America. Arnold carried moderates, independents, young, old, rich, poor, rural, urban, women and minorities. They supported him because he was an outsider who promised to clean house and they believed him.

Last week, California’s attorney general, a life-long liberal Democrat, announced he had voted for Schwarzenegger — against the recall, but for Arnold. He opposed the recall as a good Democrat should and campaigned with Davis. But when he walked into the voting booth, he decided he’d had enough of “transactional, cynical, deal-making politics.” He voted for a vision. He voted for change. He voted for "principled leadership."

That sounds a lot like Clark’s "New American Patriotism."Clark and Dean are contesting for the "broad vision" space. If Clark prevails, President Bush may well wish the general were running the war in Iraq and not the Democratic campaign for president.

Goddard is a founding partner of political consultants GC Strategic Advocacy. Article reproduced with permission.