The immediate popularity of Clark's campaign indicates more than anything else the US public's hunger for a brand of leadership that it feels it is receiving neither from the current administration nor the nine other Democratic candidates. Recent polls have put Bush's approval ratings below 50% and there is growing evidence that the public has grown weary of his administration's feckless stewardship of the economy and ham-fisted performance in Iraq. The problem for the Democratic candidates is to overcome the public perception of the party as soft on national security and dovish on foreign affairs. It is the only card Bush has left to play and rest assured that the issue will be front and centre of the 2004 election campaign. Bush was always going to be vulnerable to a Democratic nominee with serious foreign policy and national security credentials and it is into this space that Clark has stepped.

That such a relative unknown has instantly rocketed to the top of the field and is also outpolling the president speaks volumes of the public's disenchantment with its present leadership. Most Americans know little about Clark beyond the fact that he is 4-star general and if they recognize him at all it is from his presence on CNN as a military analyst. But what they do know is that he is a Democrat who opposes the direction Bush is taking the country, and that, together with his reassuring military bearing and background is all they need.

The question is whether the more the public sees of General Clark the more it will like him. In times such as these, there's plenty to like in a thrice-decorated 34-year veteran of the US military who rose to the positions of Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander in Chief of the US European Command. A handful of peaceniks are accusing him in a half-hearted way of sundry war crimes in his prosecution of the Kosovo War but the charges have little merit and in any event probably only serve to bolster the tough guy image Clark is projecting. But Clark is an impressive candidate beyond his military credentials. He is smart its not everyone who finishes first in his class at West Point and studies PPE at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar - and comes across as very thoughtful, incisive and capable presidential, one might even say. He handled himself well in his first debate and has put forth a number of well thought-out and well-received policy initiatives including increased spending on national security, relief for struggling state governments and a tax credit as an incentive to employers to hire new workers.

Clark's candidacy is the president's worst nightmare and Karl Rove and his team of presidential advisers are scrambling to mount a counter-offensive. So far all they have managed is a whispering campaign that Clark was not well liked in the army and that his entire candidacy has been engineered by Bill Clinton, neither of which will probably have any more impact than the accusations of war crimes (which even the Bush administration doesn't have the audacity to level)). This is not to say that Bush can't beat Clark. Anything can happen in 15 months and with the Bush administration in effective control of the news cycle, you had better keep your fingers crossed. But unless and until he falters, Clark is the most threatening candidate that the Democrats could have produced.