According to a Newsweek poll released this weekend, retired General Wesley Clark has vaulted to the front of the field of Democratic presidential candidates. Call me skeptical.

I could be very mistaken, but I continue to feel that Clark is a virtual unknown entity to 90% of the American public aside from the military and the chattering political classes. I find his candidacy very odd for this reason.

Historically, most military leaders who have successfully entered American politics have done so on the basis of a highly visible and highly popular military campaign that brought them into the national limelight. Just listing those former Presidents who come to mind:

George Washington – The Revolutionary War
Andrew Jackson – The Battle of New Orleans & the Indian Wars
William Henry Harrison – The Battle of Tippecanoe Creek
Zachary Taylor – The Mexican War
Ulysses S. Grant – The Civil War
Dwight D. Eisenhower – World War II in general, the Normandy invasion in particular

All of these engagements brought these individuals significant fame among the average American at the time. Even an unsuccessful nominee like Winfield Scott Hancock in 1880 had significant prior name recognition from the Mexican and Civil Wars. It was this fame which served to counterbalance any lack of political experienece these candidates may have had.

Clark, on the other hand, is best known for overseeing America’s involvement in Kosovo, specifically as NATO Supreme Commander. He enters the fray here, not as a returning popular hero, but as something of a blank slate – people actually have to explain why he’s “famous”. Aside from military and political junkies, Clark was previously just another name from the news - from an engagement that, while not insignificant, is probably destined to be a historical footnote. His rather bland recurring appearances on CNN helped raised his profile, but I’m not sure how much.

Though rightfully viewed in retrospect as a success, the intervention in Kosovo has, I suspect, very little resonance with the American people. To the extent they remember it all, I think most Americans view it as an example of the U.S. having been forced to clean up yet another European security mess and as a fundamentally humanitarian mission for which we, as a nation, have received precious little recognition from those on whose behalf we intervened. (Although, to be fair, actual Kosovars appear more grateful than the Muslim world in general.)

What seems interesting to me here is that some Democrats seem to favor Clark’s candidacy, not because of who he is or what he’s done, but simply because he comes from the military. All of his specific positions and specific accomplishments, which are not inconsequential, are viewed as secondary. And that seems like a strange basis for a candidacy for President.