Not so fast, General Clark.

A quick read of Franklin Foer's endorsement of retired Gen. Wesley Clark for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination appears to make a lot of sense. Writing on the Washington Post's July 12 op-ed page, Foer, a staff writer for the New Republic, outlines a scenario in which Clark, "drafted" by party officials, would fare "exponentially better" against President Bush than any of the current nine contenders.

A Clark candidacy, fortified by commercials featuring him in uniform, would largely negate Bush's huge advantage on national security issues, Foer writes. In addition, his "common-sense" views on traditional Democratic issues like abortion, gun control, taxes and affirmative action would position him as a "centrist maverick" rather than a partisan Beltway insider.

Embellishing his case even further, Foer compares the Clark option to 1995, when Colin Powell was touted as a challenger to Bill Clinton rather than the lethargic Bob Dole, who ultimately ran an awful campaign against the incumbent the following year. Never mind that Powell repeatedly denied any interest in the nomination, despite intense media pressure?not least from the Weekly Standard, which began publishing in the fall of '95?and a number of far-sighted GOP office-holders and rainmakers. Foer disregards recent history, writing: "But when presented with this amazing opportunity, the Republican establishment behaved like, well, an establishment and declined to give Powell substantial enough assurances of support."

There's an important difference between the two decorated generals: Powell, unlike Clark, wasn't a ubiquitous cable-tv commentator, and also gave no hope to Republicans who knew he'd be a far more formidable contender than Dole. Had Powell exhibited the same ambition for the nomination as Clark is today, he would've gained the nod with barely a primary fight.

But that's not the only flaw in Foer's argument in favor of Clark, whom I agree would pose a far more credible (if not "exponential") threat to Bush's reelection. The critical Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary may be six months away, but it's almost too late for another major contender to battle John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards for the nomination. Clark's Mario Cuomo routine won't work: If he does want to be president, it's critical he announces his intentions immediately.

Foer writes: "It seems that [Clark] is just waiting for the party establishment to rally around him and begin clearing the field... "At this date on the calendar 12 years ago, Clinton had barely registered in the polls. Besides, the date shouldn't be an excuse for dismissing Clark but rather a reason for the establishment to coalesce forcefully behind him."

It's safe to say that Kerry, who can't give a speech without stridently recalling his military record in Vietnam, would beg to differ. And does anyone expect Dean, riding on an improbable burst of momentum by appealing to left-wing Democrats, to shut down his campaign if DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe (and inevitably Bill Clinton) suddenly anointed Clark? Same goes for moneybags Edwards, the first-term North Carolina senator who's apparently giving up a relatively safe seat in a quixotic bid for the White House.

Another problem that Foer, in his quest to save the United States from four more years of Bush, doesn't address is that the Democratic "establishment" is fractured, and simply can't unilaterally dictate who the candidate will be.

As a Bush supporter, I hope the nominee will be either Kerry or Dean. The former, who reminds one of a patrician Walter Mondale, has made one mistake after another in his nascent campaign. The latter, unless there's a seismic shift in the American electorate (a remote possibility), still appears a craftier and nastier version of George McGovern.

Kerry in particular is running a remarkably inept campaign. He can't help being an effete, New England snob who finds it painful to mix with working-class voters at rallies in the South and Midwest. And his consistent liberal votes in the Senate are a matter of public record. Nevertheless, for an ambitious pol who, like Clinton, has sought the presidency since his teens, the Massachusetts patrician is conducting a front-runner's campaign despite serious opposition, and isn't seeking unconventional ways to seal up the nomination.

For example, in Lloyd Grove's July 8 Washington Post gossip column, it was reported that a Kerry advertisement was mistakenly run as a banner on Matt Drudge's website. Grove cited Dean supporter Scott Moore, who blasted Kerry on his blog Points West. Moore rants: "This frightening couple: John Kerry and Matt Drudge. Ewwwww, Ick... [A] candidate for the Dem nod giving this right-wing nutbag DOLLARS raised in the Dem Primary to post banner ads on Drudge Report? Heck, Kerry might as well buy Drudge a bow and arrow decorated with Donkey Feathers."

Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane (of Al Gore dirty-tricks fame) quickly told Grove that such an ad would never again appear on the Drudge Report.

Put aside the fact that Drudge is not a "right-wing nutbag," but rather an internet fixture intent on posting news or scoops on anyone that will generate traffic for his site. More importantly, if Kerry were the least bit cunning, he'd consistently advertise on Drudge, since people of every political affiliation log on to the site several times a day. Lost-in-Manhattan snoots like Frank Rich might consider Drudge a "cybergossip," but the fact is that his low-maintenance website is mainly a link to newspapers, magazines and columnists regardless of their politics. Most journalists and politically active citizens go to Drudge and find the following mix: the New York Times, Washington's Times and Post, the Nation, National Review, the Boston Globe, Molly Ivins, Joe Conason, Robert Novak, Lucianne Goldberg, Maureen Dowd and Michael Kinsley, to name just several of an exhaustive list.

Drudge also did Kerry a favor last Friday by publishing an "unearthed archive shot" of the senator and John Lennon from the 70s. Coupled with Kerry's photo op with President Kennedy as a teenager (published in the Boston Globe last month), it gives his campaign the option of direct-mail contribution appeals featuring one of the pictures, depending on what demographic he's aiming at.

That's what's called a gift, but apparently Lehane and his boss are too cautious to employ the kind of guerrilla campaign that'll be necessary for victory.

In addition, Kerry can't resist the sort of rhetoric that brings whoops and high-fives from hardcore Democrats but leaves independents scratching their heads. In an article by the Times' Adam Nagourney, published on July 14, Kerry said: "Americans have a right to ask a question, 'Are we safer today than we were three years ago?'... It's obvious now with the lack of international support in Iraq that our troops are at risk because we don't have the kind of plan that would have come with adequate diplomacy."

I'm no pollster, but so far, with no major terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, the answer to Kerry's question is yes, Americans are safer than three years ago. And the senator and his fellow White House aspirants can bluster about Iraq all they want, but it's not even six months since the ouster of Saddam began. You can't wave a wand over the country and expect an instant, smooth-running democracy. Perhaps the occupation there will take a far uglier turn in the next year, leaving Bush and his administration vulnerable, but presently the catcalls of Kerry and his Democratic colleagues are 90 percent hot air.

Finally, as Ronald Brownstein reported in the July 14 Los Angeles Times, John Edwards is getting downright goofy (my word, not his), perhaps a reflection of his single-digit poll numbers. Calling Bush "a phony... a complete phony," is standard fare, but the following remark is one of desperation: "[Bush's economic plan is] the most radical and dangerous economic theory to hit our shores since socialism."

Whew. Maybe John-Boy ought to sit back, sip on a Dr. Pepper and rest a spell.

Derek Jeter: Superstar Ego

When did Derek Jeter become such an asshole?

Even for fans who've always despised the Yankees, at least as an institution, one of the characteristics of their recent teams was that individually, most of the Yanks seemed like decent guys. Joe Torre's the class of the field in the manager category, and there's nothing to dislike about Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, Robin Ventura, Mike Mussina or Alfonso Soriano. Sure, Paul O'Neill was a sourpuss, kicking water coolers or throwing a batting helmet after he failed to deliver a clutch hit, but that was more self-flagellation than the obnoxious swagger of the late-70s Bomber teams.

But Jeter now gives off the odor of George Steinbrenner.

In a July 11 New York Times article, Harvey Araton comes to a similar, if more muted, conclusion after a conversation with Ken Huckaby. Huckaby's the journeyman catcher whose kneeguard Jeter slammed into in Toronto, on Opening Day, March 31, resulting in the shortstop's sustaining a dislocated shoulder that kept him out of the lineup for 39 games. Even though Huckaby was just doing his job, covering third as Jeter hustled for an extra bag, he attempted to apologize anyway.

Huckaby, 32, and now in the minors, told Araton that he unsuccessfully tried to phone Jeter after the game. Two days later, he went to the Yanks' locker room and spoke to the injured celebrity in person, offering wishes for a quick recovery. Araton writes: "Then [Huckaby] was standing there, prying Yankee eyes upon him, Jeter looking right at him and through him. Huckaby recalled tense, wordless moments, with no trace of Jeter's million-dollar smile or even a detectable change of facial expression."

"It was troubling to me, disappointing, the whole thing," Huckaby recalled to Araton last week. "Yeah, he got hurt, but he's still making the money; he's back playing for the Yankees. By the time we saw them again in New York, I was gone."

Araton states: "It is not as if Huckaby is trying to draw distinctions between himself and a potential Hall of Famer. He just wonders how Jeter could have been so dismissive of his competitive rights, so unwilling to consider the plight of a minor league lifer trying to preserve his major league dream."

Jeter, who also complained about being hit by Pedro Martinez recently, isn't handling the deterioration of his offensive and defensive skills very well. Oh, and the Yanks, heaven forbid, haven't won the World Series for two consecutive years, an unacceptable reality that last fall Jeter blamed on the complacency of his teammates.

He's a lost cause. One only hopes this self-centered sense of entitlement doesn't infect Soriano, by far the most exciting player in baseball today.

Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:MUG1988@aol.com)