A calm, confident voice coming from the television set last Sunday morning so caught my attention that I put the newspaper down on the kitchen counter, grabbed my cup of coffee and quickly sat down in the den to listen to a man who was actually making sense on the issues.

It did not take me long to realize that he was the one -- not the messiah necessarily, but the one who would make an attractive, more-than-credible candidate to challenge President Bush in the 2000 election.

He was not one of the nine declared Democratic presidential candidates.

And although he acknowledged having been encouraged to seek the nation's highest office, he said he had not made that decision yet and he had not even chosen a political party.

Perhaps so, but the more he talked, the more it was clear that if he ran at all, he would have to run as a Democrat.

You see, during the interview he basically declared that third-party candidacies are ineffective, and his stand on the issues seemed diametrically opposed to the current administration's (and the Republican Party's) views.

Here was a nonpolitician speaking with a rare clarity that is certainly hard to find in most elected officials on any level.

Fielding pointed questions from moderator Tim Russert of NBC's Meet the Press, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark spoke freely and forcefully, clearly yet untarnished by political handlers, strategists and speechwriters.

Remember the name: Wesley K. Clark.

How refreshing it was to hear more than the usual blah, blah, blah and hubba, hubba, hubba say-nothing rhetoric that has become the official language of Washington officialdom and political campaigns.

Make a mental note, as I did Sunday morning: Wesley K. Clark. A retired general.

I wish I had been taking notes with a pad and pen, but when I thought back, there was really no need. He was so articulate that I heard him, understood him and remembered what he said.

He did not engage in Bush-bashing or Congress-chiding. And, except for refusing to declare his candidacy or party affiliation, he did not skirt the issues.

Clark, who was forced out as the supreme allied commander in Europe, said that although he thought Iraq probably had some kind of weapons program, the Bush administration never proved the imminence of an Iraqi threat.

He also firmly opposed the huge Bush tax cuts, saying they would not stimulate the economy and basically favored the wealthiest of Americans.

The retired general also explained why he had filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the University of Michigan's affirmative-action plan, noting that affirmative action in the military had served the nation well.

It is pretty obvious that there are those who fear Clark's possible entry into the presidential race. Just since the Sunday-morning program, when I began searching the Internet for information on him, there have been more than a few new Web sites trying to discredit him.

That's a very good sign.

Clark, who grew up in Little Rock, Ark., has ties to Texas, having served as commander of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood.

Among his numerous military assignments and accomplishments, he commanded a company in Vietnam.

According to the NATO Web site, "General Clark is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, where he graduated first in his class. He holds a master's degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar (August 1966-August 1968). He is a graduate of the National War College, Command and General Staff College, Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses, and Ranger and Airborne schools."

In addition, he has been a White House Fellow and a special assistant to the director of the Office of Management and Budget and has served as assistant professor of social science at West Point.

He looks like a man of high credentials to me.

Certainly there are other candidates with the qualifications to be president, but of the nine announced Democratic contenders, only two -- and I won't name them -- have any hope of capturing the nomination, and neither of them has a chance of winning without Clark (or someone very much like him) on the ticket.

So the way I see it right now, whether he's at the top or the bottom of the ticket, the Democrats don't stand a chance without Clark as a candidate.