I just posted this as a reply in another thread but decided to add it to my diary. In replying, I was able to recognize and specify my intuition about Clark's motivation for being in the race and realize why he's not my first choice.
The confession is that, like many people do in choosing candidates, I've based my opinion not on policy issues (I agree and disagree with him, just as I do with Governor Dean) but on - well -- my own analysis of his personality and drive. Which could be totally wrong. I don't want to sound like Krauthammer, for heaven's sake, but I guess I kind of do.
Anyway, here's what I think and what I posted:
As I've said in other threads, I believe Clark is brilliant and has served our country honorably and with bravery.
I guess the impression I've had of him is that he's a guy who wants to be on the inside track -- who knows he's got the smarts and credentials and wants to be consulted and admired by those in power. (In the insular world of my small profession, I confess to occasionally having the same feelings, so I do understand.)
So my view of the speeches and the lobbying is that, after he left the military, he was trying out various things to see how he could best get back in the game. That meant that, as the Bush administration was coming in, it made sense to praise them and not shut any doors, as it were. He was in the lobbying business, yes, but I think he probably missed the policy contact he had as SAC-NATO.
Thus the oft-attributed quote that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my calls." The point of that story is not whether or not he was joking (as he says he was) but that those who tell it are trying to communicate this aspect of his personality -- the desire to be in the loop of whatever the best game in town is.
None of this disqualifies him to be President. None of this would prevent me from supporting him should he receive the nomination. But all of it has influenced me not to make him my first choice.