Here’s a moderate who isn’t like the usual politicians.

Since the start of the 20th century, seven presidents first served as vice president, nine were governors, five were senators, and two served in the Cabinet. One was none of the above: retired Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower.

In the 2004 presidential race, all but two Democratic candidates have served in Congress or as governor. An eighth, the Rev. Al Sharpton, is an almost certain also-ran. The other is none of the above: retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

And that may explain the initial strength that has catapulted the year’s unlikeliest candidate to the top of the national polls. At a time when the public seems turned off on politics as usual, he isn’t like the usual politicians.

With the war on terrorism putting new emphasis on national security issues, Clark brings a unique combination of high-level military and diplomatic experience no rival can match.

In a field dominated by Northern liberals, he is more like the Southern moderates who have been the party’s best national vote getters in the last 30 years. He also appeals to Democrats eager for anyone they think could win.

Still, it is a long way from leading national polls to winning a nomination. He has shown his inexperience in explaining his positions, notably on what should be his strong point: the war on Iraq. His admission that he voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan may turn off some Democrats. And he has had the kind of staff turmoil that afflicts many hastily organized campaigns.

But after some hesitancy, he is beginning to show an understanding of the nominating process that he will need to convert his poll numbers into primary victories.

His decision to bypass Iowa’s caucuses on Jan. 19 recognized how hard it would have been to build an organization to compete there. He would have had to overcome the head start of Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. And, besides, Iowa’s electorate is dominated by union members, senior citizens and liberal activists, hardly an ideal battlefield for a military man’s first political battle.

Clark’s decision, and a similar one by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, probably won’t change the race much, since neither was likely to do well in Iowa. Both may find New Hampshire’s Jan. 27 primary more promising, especially Clark. Its primary is more volatile. Its electorate is bigger and will include thousands of independents. A poll last week showed him running third, behind New England candidates Dean and Kerry.

New Hampshire also has been a launching pad for candidates who didn’t do well in Iowa: Democrats Gary Hart in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and Republican John McCain in 2000.

Events could play into the general’s hands. If Dean defeats Gephardt in Iowa and Kerry in New Hampshire, a strong showing in New Hampshire could make Clark the former Vermont governor’s main foe as the race moves south and west. (Of course, Gephardt could foil that plan by winning Iowa and making himself Dean’s chief rival.)

Still, many party leaders see Clark as the best hope of blocking Dean, whose outsider appeal they fear won’t attract enough moderates and independents to win. As a general who voted for Nixon and Reagan, Clark could cut GOP margins among white men. Some liberals think he is too conservative. But their antagonism to President Bush will ensure that most vote Democratic.

On the other hand, he may be the least experienced high-level candidate since the GOP nominated Wendell Willkie in 1940. Inexperienced candidates often make mistakes at crucial moments. The odds definitely are against him.

But if he can avoid mistakes and succeed in negotiating the primaries, Clark could make the 2004 race even more unpredictable than it already looks.

Carl P. Leubsdorf is Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News.

Copy the Story Link