Mark Steyn has a pretty good take on General Clark--the best so far:

For a year now, the Democratic nomination has been a battle between joke candidates, led by the Reverend Al Sharpton, and dull senators, led by John Kerry of Massachusetts. Vermont?s Howard Dean briefly caught the media?s fancy ? he?s anti-war and from the only state with legal gay sorta-marriage. But, after a while, they began to notice that the more they talked up Dean the more the folks in the White House seemed to be falling around splitting their sides. So eventually they figured he was this year?s George McGovern, and they needed a new ?None Of The Above?.

And here he is: General Wesley Clark. That?s what he is to the public at the moment: ?None Of The Above? in a General?s uniform. Once they get to know him and he joins the ranks of ?The Above?, Democrats will be back to Square One looking for a new ?None?. But for now no one knows a thing about him. In fact, he doesn?t seem to know much about him. One day, he?s pro-war. Next day, he?s anti-war. Then, just to clarify, he says he can go either way: ?I?ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position.?

And when a man has to put himself into a position, the best thing to do is call an aide to tell him which one it is. ?Mary, help!? Clark called to his press secretary in front of reporters, and Mary did indeed come to his rescue, explaining to the General what his position is.

He also has some cautionary words for Democrats about Mr. and Mrs. Clinton:

...whatever happens, the 44th President will not be Wesley Clark.

Why?s that? First and foremost, Wes is a Friend Of Bill, as in Clinton. Bill gets through FOBs at an enormous rate and even those who don?t wind up dead, in jail or drowning in legal bills rarely prosper. As has been noted in this space many times, the Clintons? Democratic party is great for the Clintons, disastrous for the Democratic party. From Arkansas, Bill went on to Washington; his successor as governor, Jim Guy Tucker, went on to jail. His party lost control of Congress, but Bill got re-elected. He survived the impeachment trial, but his vice-president lost the White House. He bequeathed a New York senate seat to his wife, but the Clinton flack he installed at the Democratic National Committee led the party to defeat in just about every competitive senate race last November.

Anyone spot the pattern here? If Bill and Hill were to demand a constitutional amendment to lower the age qualification so that Chelsea could run for President, I?d put better odds on that than Clark?s chances of success.

One thing I might have missed in all this... In all the whining about our occupation of Iraq, has anyone bothered to mention the years we've spent in the Balkans? I particularly wonder how Generallisimo Clark views that.

BTW, I saw tape of the Dems debate. Should've had Anne Robinson as the moderator, because the layout looked a lot like "Weakest Link". Which is somehow appropriate...

- Eric.

This piece was so funny, Steyn at his best. I couldn't stop laughing.