This exchange is very informative. I don't know enough about Clark to be for or against him. However, the main question mark in my mind is his ability to negotiate the politics of the Whitehouse.
From everything I've read, Clark has a stellar military background, but no "real-world" experience. In the military, a general tells you what to do (right or wrong) and you do it (unless it's illegal or immoral), or you go to jail; in the real world, it doesn't work like that. That manner of leadership doesn't really translate well to the civilian world. My fear is that Clark may be too one dimensional.
I like the idea of having a true warrior in the Whitehouse; someone that knows the capacities of our military and understands our strategic position in the world, but who has actual fought. Unlike our present administration that is full of warriors that when it was their turn to stand up, either opted out and didn't serve, or kept the Great State of Texas safe from the invading Vietnamese hoard (when he wasn't AWOL).
But military leaders don't have to know anything about domestic affairs or how our domestic policies impact the rest of the globe.