Although the obvious topic for a political op-ed this week would have been Ahnold’s victory, I will focus on that other circus of candidates, the Democratic primary. We have much to go over, so I will leave aside the usual rhetorical flourishes and syntaxical jeux-de-mots in favor of a good dose of American realpolitik. For those of you who have been following the race only from a distance or not at all or who have been busy drafting Nader for another go at it, I present a short, and very biased, guide. It is a strange phenomenon of American politics that the primaries, that orgy of small-town diner barnstorming and nursing home town hall meetings, may decide the White House, and by extension, the direction of world politics. We have already seen what Bush II is willing and able to do with both domestic and foreign policy given the weakest of mandates from the electorate. Dare we fathom what he would do with a clear victory and four more years?

While the Democrats have been busy fundraising on the Internet, debating themselves on middle-of-the-afternoon cable and accusing each other of all sorts of political sins, Bush, who claims not to be following the Democrats, has been busy quietly raising millions of dollars for the Republican National Committee ($94.2 million so far, compared to the Democrats’ $34.1 million). All people who consider themselves left of the William Kristols should have learned two things from the past two-and-a-half years. First, there is a difference between the parties; one is forced to wonder whether Nader himself still believes his 2000 campaign rallying cry for the politically disaffected. Second, the candidate to face Bush in 2004 will have to effectively counter the president’s ability to use Joe Six Pack jingoism as an ace-in the-hole.

Now I will methodically run through the nine remaining Demo-crats and show their relative weaknesses. The four saddest candidates are the ones stricken by what pundits call “candidate-itis,” the degenerative effect of publicity and cheering crowds on the rational ability to gauge one’s chances of winning. Carol Moseley Braun (with ethical cloud from 1998), John Edwards (who cannot even carry his own state, North Carolina), Dennis Kucinich (whose caricature could be confused with Bush’s) and Joe Lieberman (a Republican who doesn’t distinguish between religion and state) are all seriously afflicted. Under-funded, they will only peel away precious black, female, Jewish and anti-war votes from the other candidates who have a chance. This quintet should take a hint from Bob Graham (or Arianna Huffington, for that matter) and drop out…immediately. We are left with Dick Gephardt, the Missouri Congressman who holds 16 union endorsements; Howard Dean, the prolific Internet fundraising wonder kid from Vermont; John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator with Vietnam credentials; and the latest entrant, General Wesley Clark. I will set aside the two career politicians in the interest of space and focus on the frontrunner.

Howard Dean’s speeches enthrall and inspire me. He is a refreshing voice among a crowded field and proof that the Democratic leadership is out of touch with the party. His angry rhetoric is thirst-quenching and his rise from obscurity is uniquely American. His support comes from $25 Internet contributions, not $1,500-a-plate fundraising dinners. He has stood against the war even as the Saddam statue came down and the anti-war protestors hid under a rug. He is also wholly and totally unelectable beyond his young and very white activist base.

If you want to know how to beat Bush in 2004, all you have to do is ask any Republican strategist who they fear most. The Times and Post have both reported that the White House is licking its chops at the possibility of a Dean candidature. Nothing would give Karl Rove greater pleasure than to see Howard Dean win early and big in key primary states. The right-wing talk shows haven’t even gotten around to taking swings at Dean. So who have they focused their ire on? Well, Bill Clinton for one. But mostly, they passionately hate Wesley Clark. Not to be confused with the black British bodybuilder who shares his name, Clark is the latest candidate and the newest Democrat. A four-star general, West Point valedictorian, Rhodes Scholar and wounded Vietnam veteran, he used CNN no other than his bully pulpit to sharply criticize the Iraq war. While the other Democrats have been eager to portray him as an opportunist, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right are still tinkering with the ideal depiction of Clark (so far—’60s “flower child,” Muslim terrorist “sympathizer” and war criminal).

Why will I ask you to vote for a military man who helped elect Nixon, Reagan and Bush I? Along with Michael Moore and millions of others, I believe that Wesley Clark is the only electable candidate among the nine. Clark’s true beauty is his ability to unapologetically touch sacred cows such as the defense budget (too big), gays in the military (“don’t ask, don’t tell” doesn’t work), gun rights (join the Army if you want to use an assault rifle) and most importantly, the Iraq war. Anxious to defend his late-blooming Democratic Party affiliation, Clark has come out to the left of many of the other candidates on a range of domestic issues, from health care and the tax cut to the death penalty and medicinal marijuana. Much of the press corps have already fallen for the general; dispatches from the Times, Post, Newsweek and Time drip with the puppy love that was once reserved for Howard Dean. He has already raised $3.5 million, more than many others who have been in the race for months. Many life-long Democrats (not to mention staffers from other campaigns) are abandoning the unelectables. Surely Macalester can’t be too far behind.