At first, any candidate you’ve never heard of before is naturally a blank canvas; before the media paints the picture, we ten to project our own hopes and desires onto it. Dean was that way. I’m still not too sure of him. He’s able to generate a groundswell and seems to have liberal enough leanings, but he’s also been conservative in the past. So I’m seeing an indeterminate canvas for him.

Retired general Wesley Clark is another new face, the details still largely absent. But unlike with Dean, the substantive things I learn about him are more positive, with fewer negatives so far. The main negative thing you’ll hear is how he’s bristly, a little arrogant, harsh, and not too friendly. But few commentators who mention these qualities seem to realize that these characterizations come from people who knew him as a general, and as the NATO commander. I mean, what else would you expect? Warm and fuzzy?

You also hear words like brilliant, talented, driven, brave–words that suggest both character and ability. Four-star general, NATO commander, Silver Star–not tokens you can pick up lightly. He was against the Iraq war from the get-go. He is for gun control, is firmly pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and is against Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. He would avoid war except where absolutely necessary, and feels it is vital to work together with our allies. He is still more a blank slate where domestic issues are concerned, but the “brilliant” and “driven” qualities will likely make up for that. I would presume that, after all this time looking at the prospects, that he has done his homework and has forged a base of stands on issues, both foreign and domestic.

We’ll have to wait and see how he does, if he can keep up a warm demeanor with the press and public, if the press takes kindly to him or starts shooting him down, if he stands up on the issues, if he can improve his oratory, and many other intangibles. But there is hope in this candidate.