It’s no secret.

For the past few months the Democrats have been desperate to
find a contender truly worthy to make a run in November 2004.
Instead, they apparently settled on General Wesley Clark.

As the president’s poll numbers began to drop over the summer,
the previously inadequate Democratic candidates suddenly appeared
to be competent challengers to President George W. Bush. However,
many began to tire of Howard Dean’s bellicose ramblings or John
Kerry’s belaboring of his Vietnam experience.

It soon became obvious they were gaining no ground, even though
Bush was losing his. Then enters the general who quickly shot to
the forefront of the race.

An endorsement from former President Bill Clinton proved to be
the deciding factor in the immediate

allegiance of the Democrats toward Clark. Now the media
enthusiastically hails Clark as the Democrat’s true redeemer, but
from what?

Besides general poise, the only view Clark has offered is
insistence on repeal on the Bush tax cut, which does not
differentiate him from the other candidates. However, in that
respect, Clark has proven adept at using the Democrat technique of
labeling everything with ostensible misnomers.

The Left’s chiding of the tax cut has quickly become the
“Where’s the Beef?” for the current campaign. Yet, notice this: the
relentless urging to “repeal” betrays their fear of calling it what
it is–a tax raise. Not surprising, seeing as voters from Georgia
to Washington have recently struck down proposed tax increases
swiftly and decisively. Of course, everyone knows what the Dems
really mean. Or do they?

Facts like repeal equals tax raise would seem obvious to the
educated voter; but such details are evidently more ambiguous than
they appear, to the educated. Consider this: In a survey conducted
by The Wall Street Journal, when the title “General” is removed
from polls to read simply “Wes Clark,” his support drops by nearly
17 percent. Take nothing for granted.

Still, the suddenness of Clark’s candidacy makes up only part of
the greater picture. With more than a year remaining and Bush
seeing the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, Democrats
have decided to move in for the kill.

The current economic upturn makes the economy an increasingly
difficult area for criticism. So, instead, the rhetoric has shifted
to a “jobless recovery” and Bush’s record of creating no new
employment.

However these critics also seem to ignore Department of Labor
statistics from 2001 that predicted that by 2010, there will exist
a job surplus of nearly 10 million over the labor force.

Stats like this may well point that the president has very
little to do with job creation in the modern environment; but then
again, “it’s the economy, stupid.”

On other fronts, Iraq continues to be an easy target for
criticism; but with more than a year until the election, time
remains for improvement overseas. Perhaps fearing this, Democrats
have started brewing the scandal cauldron.

The leaked identity of a CIA undercover agent was quickly blamed
on the White House. When journalist Robert Novak, purveyor of the
privileged information, announced that none of his sources were, in
fact, from the White House, Democrats backpedaled while lobbing the
standard pot shots at the incompetence of John Ashcroft and the
Department of Justice.

As usual, the severity of the accusation will always outweigh
the truth of the crime, and all comers will be hard fought to
sustain this anti-Bush campaign convincingly enough to vote him out
of incumbency.

This premature onslaught suggests Democrats are concerned about
their ability to achieve victory while sticking with guiding
liberal principles. Dean, the supposed “Democrats’ Democrat,” loses
outright to Bush, conclusively, in all polls, while Kerry is no
more than a blip on the president’s radar screen.

Gen. Clark’s persistent caterwauling on the war makes it unclear
what side of the spectrum he is attempting to appease (not to
mention his comments made only two years ago as the keynote speaker
at a GOP Lincoln Day Dinner that found him praising Republicans,
from President Bush to Ronald Reagan).

Clinton’s labeling of Clark as the “star” of the Democratic
Party is also confusing. Clark, a noted political novice, has not
even been a full-fledge Democrat for more than two years.

Calling him the star either speaks to the general weakness of
the party as a whole or the necessity to dub an overt centrist with
an impressive title as the frontrunner out of fear that anyone with
true leftist ideals could not succeed.

Furthermore, in 1999, then President Clinton removed Clark from
his NATO stewardship abruptly and not on genial terms. Why, three
years later, is the general suddenly presidential material in
Clinton’s eyes?

This consistently dubious and strange field vying for the
nomination shows how clearly disjointed the Democrats have
become.

As the election continues to draw closer, their strategy appears
increasingly perplexing. All that has been discernible so far is
that they want a candidate who is not a Republican. But they are
having a hard time even finding that.

Robert Seefeldt is a junior studying accounting and
English.