Andrew Sullivan rails against Democrats who support Wesley Clark regardless of his positions on issues. I was wrong about Clark's electability, but I stand by this, from August:
What I don't get is why so many people seem to think that of all the Democratic candidates he would have the best chance of beating Bush, and even be favored over George Bush to win the presidency. The consensus among these people seem to be that since Clark was a general, that would erase the Democrat's gap on national security, even though Clark wasn't exactly in favor of going into Iraq.
This attitude underscores the lack of seriousness on the part of some Democrats on national security, and a misunderstanding of how the average American feels about national security. They seem to believe that those who are hesitant to vote for a Democrat for president in the next election because of this issue will vote for Clark simply because he's a general and can tell good war stories. Americans give Bush and the Republicans an edge in this issue not because Bush talks tough and looks good riding shotgun on a jet, but because they believe what Bush is doing is making America safer. One can argue whether Bush's policies do make America safer, but we won't be having that debate any time soon if a non-insignificant portion of the opposition think they can sweep the issue away by nominating a war hero so they can get back to talking about the important issues. Until this faction gets a clue, Americans will continue to perceive Democrats as weak on national security.
Also, on the USA Today/CNN poll I linked to yesterday,
Sullivan points out that the poll sample contains a disproportionate number of self-identified Democrats.
