A few weeks ago, I made it abundantly clear that I am an outright supporter of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean in the 2 004 Presidential election. But an interesting question was raised in the Democratic primary race last week: Can a Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas enter the Presidential race much later than anyone else and bring the Democratic Party back into power?Retired General Wesley Clark announced his candidacy on Wednesday, becoming only the second of the 10 running for the Democratic nomination to feature a military record. Sen. John Kerry is, of course, a decorated war hero, but being AWOL from the Texas Air Guard does not count at all (although this only applies to those seeking reelection). It is interesting though that the latest candidate in the 2004 election is a general, and it supports the notion that next year's campaign will be an all-out political war.

Almost the entirety of the Democratic campaigns to this point have been full of acerbic rhetoric at the president's expense. This vitriol is well placed, but it is only the opening battle of the "War of 2004."

Howard Fineman, in a recent column for Newsweek, wrote that, "The Democrats' view of Bush and his crowd is equally apocalyptic and unforgiving." Then again, Democrats have much to be irate about. Almost confirming Hilary Clinton's speculation about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC), there have been several Republican attempts in the last five years to undermine the Democrats. Impeachment, Florida, Redistricting and the Recall are nothing more than legal weapons the Republicans have used since 1998.

Democrats seething at the Bush administration for both its existence and action have an opportunity for payback for the election of 2000. But this potential revenge is not just for the Palm Beach debacle (my sincerest condolences to Floridian readers), it is also for the agenda of the first Bush campaign.

In 2000, the economy was incredibly robust -- seemingly endless budget surpluses ensured the future viability of Social Security and Medicare and foreign policy was incredibly stable. Whether you loved or hated Slick Willie, it was a good eight years to be an American.

So what did the Republicans run on? The Bush campaign stood on two pillars. One was the tax cut. The other pillar was Oval Office conduct during the presidency of that other Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas. And, because Al Gore attempted to distance himself from Bill Clinton, the 2000 election - on a national level - ended as little more than a referendum on Clinton the man.

In 2004, we will have a referendum on Bush the president. Bush, to his credit, does not have as many vulnerable character flaws as Clinton, but he has told many half-truths and made unfulfilled promises, which is the most exploited political flaw. Of course, the Republican response is to paint those who oppose their leader as unpatriotic and even traitorous because the country is in a time of war.

Just ask Max Cleland, the now-former Senator from Georgia who lost a reelection bid last year when his Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss painted him as vehemently unpatriotic for opposing the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Chambliss, in top Republican form, evaded the draft twice in 1969, for what is billed as a congenital knee problem. Cleland has no knees. He lost three limbs in 1968, while fighting in Vietnam.

It only adds to the excitement that a veteran of Clark's stature is now in the race. And, like any war, the armies in the "War of 2004" are going to need their generals. The Republicans have their supreme commander in Karl Rove, Bush's political mastermind. They also have heavy artillery in Gov. George Pataki and Rudolph Giuliani in both their popularity after 9/11, and their abilities to garner campaign funds. Senators and congressmen are the foot soldiers (this goes for both parties).

For the Democrats, party stalwarts like Sen. Edward Kennedy and Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe are always available for battle. Gore will occasionally make a highly publicized appearance, though his speeches these days seem to be confined primarily to the academic circuit.

Right now, the Democratic commanders are in the individual campaigns. Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, seems to be the most politically astute of anyone currently running a Democratic campaign.

Clark jumped in the pool primarily at the behest of the 'Draft Clark' movement, so the real commander has his legions. But all the campaigns have their followers, so the pertinent question for the Democrats is: How well can they consolidate into one unified campaign after the primaries?

Of course, there is the 800 pound gorilla that is Clinton. The former president has been supporting the embattled Gray Davis of late, but he has not spoken out on the Democratic primaries, although there are unconfirmed reports that he favors Clark. But when a candidate is actually chosen, that person will tap into one of the greatest fund-raisers ever.

Granted, Bush shattered all sorts of records last year in campaigning for his party, but as money-raising presidents go, Dubya is merely second-best. Only Bill Clinton can get more cash, and I cannot overemphasize to the Democratic Party the necessity of his involvement next year.

The shroud of the VRWC has long since been lifted and politicians advocating bipartisanship are shouting at the rain. Republicans and Democrats are as diametrically opposed as ever on every issue from energy to health care to foreign policy. The 2004 election won't just decide the next leader of the United States, it will secure the very direction of the United States for years to come.

The Democrats all propose something better than what we have now. And if the current Bush administration is any indicator, a second term of Bush leadership looks incredibly bleak for this country. In times like these, nations undergo monumental changes and the people face difficult decisions, but so goes the nature of war.