More in the spirit of a eulogy than an obituary, The Washington Monthly's Paul Glastris writes in the New York Times today:
No one can doubt that something new happened during the 2004 Democratic primaries: a candidate who lost may have as great an impact on the party's political future as whichever candidate wins. That candidate, of course, is Wesley Clark.For now, national security is no longer the burning issue many of us hoped would not only send Bush packing but inspire innovative policies that actually would make us safer. And the president brushes off any criticisms by dismissing them as the noises of the "political season." Should John Kerry prevail, we'll see if he really is a statesman or only plays one on tv. Regardless, Wesley Clark remains a national asset whose failure to win political office this year should not diminish his potential to make enormous contributions to peace and democracy when all the current chest-beating is over.In crucial ways, however, General Clark's candidacy changed not only this election but also elections to come.
General Clark made national security and electability the crux of his campaign. . . . Only if a candidate could persuade voters that they would be safer would he be able to interest them in other issues like the economy or health care. But most Democrats were afraid to ask the question. This unwillingness to confront the issue of national security made it possible for Democrats to convince themselves that Howard Dean could beat President Bush.
As soon as General Clark entered the race, however, Democrats could no longer avoid the issue. . . . General Clark's early success had a profound effect on Democrats' expectations. . . . In addition to the appeal of his biography, General Clark also brought an informed legitimacy to the Democratic critique of the president's national security policies. . . . The very fact that a four-star general who for most of his adult life voted Republican was saying that the president had failed the troops made those critiques seem less partisan and more credibile.
General Clark had another profound influence on this campaign: with the possible exception of Joseph Lieberman, he was the most willing to talk openly about his religious faith.. . . Other Democratic candidates soon followed, including Howard Dean. Yet Dr. Dean's comments — such as how he left a church in Vermont over a dispute about a bike path — tended to raise as many questions as they answered about his religious convictions. In short, they made him seem less genuine and more like a typical politician.A final legacy of General Clark's campaign may be the way in which he entered the race: by getting drafted. . . . Primary voters have usually been forced to choose from among self-nominated candidates fueled by their own ambition. The Clark draft showed the viability of an alternative: Democratic (or Republican) voters acting on their own could choose the candidate most to their liking and lure him into the race with pledges of money and a ready-made volunteer army.
Had General Clark decided to contest Iowa a month ago, he almost certainly would have done well, and he might well be winning the race right now. Instead, John Kerry, the establishment candidate, is the current leader in Democratic presidential campaign. In many ways he owes his position to the revolution that General Clark started.