Wesley Clark. This week, Mr. Clark announced his intention to run for election to become President of the United States. And oh boy, if he isn't getting some attention now. For complete and continuing coverage, I'd highly recommend Andrew Sullivan. On first look, it appears that the Democrats may be getting something other than what they expect.

As expressed by one typical Democrat (eternally biased and often underinformed), my father, Clark is a perfect candidate. He's a 4-star general, so he should be solid on national security, but otherwise he tows the liberal line. That's enough, apparently, for quite a few Democrats to get excited. In fact, as of today, Clark is leading the field (although how a Democrat would be so excited about someone who "would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls" is beyond me).

First, the criticisms. These are second hand, but mostly non-partisan: First, the assertion that Clark was and is "anti-war" is covered by FAIR while Salon comments on Clarks' compusure or lack thereof, with Andrew Sullivan commenting. Those are pretty friendly, in comparison to Robert Novak's attention to a very unfortunate photo of Clark changing hats with Radko Mladic. Ouch.

Drudge helpfully points out some speculation that Clark is (unwittingly?) upsetting the Democratic campaign in order to aid Hillary's entry. And if she decides not to? Well, what's wrong with sacrificing a would-be Republican?

But that's other peoples' speculation. Now, time for some of mine - but let's call it analysis, please.

First, the amount of excitement for Clark illustrates that Democrats, even those involved in national politics, are not very excited about any of the current candidates. Simply put, they don't believe any of them can beat Bush. Clark offers hope, and the longer they can remain ignorant of his many flaws, the longer they can hope. This idea of dissatisfaction with the current candidates is also supported by the continued calls for Hillary or even Gore to enter the race.

And why not? Bush is vulnerable, right? Here's what I think - Lucy is holding the ball, while Charlie Brown works himself up for the kick. Karl Rove is Lucy. He's probably hoping that Hillary goes for a kick, but that's unlikely. But a lot of Democrats are getting excited, and someone is going to race ahead for the heavenly kick. The media strokes the candidates and Democrats with poll data - Bush is weakening, re-elect number below 50%, etc. They're making the race look quite attractive.

I'm not saying that those polls are false, or that people aren't currently less supportive of Bush. But, we need some context. The media, who run approximately 10-to-1 Democrat-to-Republican, have spent months criticizing everything Bush. From the first days of the war in Iraq we heard words like "quagmire" (and similar from Clark, eh?), and since the declared end to military hostilities we've heard nothing but criticism of the post-war rebuilding effort, and not just from partisans. Same goes for domestic policy, where even some Bush-friendly folks have (rightly) criticized some policies. Of course all this negative coverage has lowered Bush's numbers.

So, what have the mastermind Karl and Bush been up to? Raising money at a record-breaking pace (Bush's records, that is), while Bush makes a show of doing his job. The Bush team have hardly made any moves to bolster the President's image since the aircraft carrier announcement. Don't they know there's an election going on?

Oh, wait. That's next November. So let me get this straight - next year, around early summer, the Democrats will end their infighting and nominate a candidate. After the fighting, they'll probably have about $10 or $20 million in the bank, and be limited by either federal matching funds (about $70 million total) or at least by campaign finance rules ($2,000 per hard money donation, no soft money). Bush will have a projected 200 million campaign chest, all campaign-finance friendly hard money.

My feeling is that the Bush team would actually prefer to be "down" in the polls at that point. That's because the press loves a "surge", and Bush surging from the low 40's to the mid 50's would be a real boost to his campaign. That is, the real campaign, the one that occurs in September and October 2004. With $200 million to make his case while Democrats are essentially silent it will be easy - like Lucy pulling that ball away as Democrats go sailing by, feet in the air and heads in the ground.

I don't count myself a Bush booster, although he is certainly by favorite candidate among the current choices. I very much doubt I would like Karl Rove or John Ashcroft given an introduction. But I do see, and I believe it is with clear eyes, a very skillful team running the politics in the White House. They understand momentum, the media, even pundits and Democrats. And, most of all, they understand expectations. Set them low, and exceed them. Look weak in the polls, then show strength. Make the Democrats look strong, then show them receding.

As for the criticisms of Bush - that he is a liar, that Iraq is failing, that WMDs don't exist in Iraq, that the economy is failing - so far, these are all one-sided arguments. Conventional wisdom among Democrats, actually. But each has a strong counter-argument, tested and improved in conservative circles, but not by the administration (publicly). It's quite possible, even likely, that by this time next year Saddam will be killed or captured, Iraq will be unquestionaly stable, the economy will be completely out of recession, and WMDs will be documented. Perhaps not all of the above, but almost certainly 2 of 4, with $200 million to make Bush's case. And where will that leave Democrats? Kicking the air, perhaps?

One last point - all those predictions above that would benefit Bush - they are all bets on American successs. Meanwhile, Democrats are left essentially rooting against America. That's the essential triangulation that makes me want Bush to succeed - he wins if we win. Why would anyone support a party that is slowly but essentially becoming the anti-American party? I mean, apart from Bush's "stupidity"?