Ronald Bailey compares Wesley Clark to Chauncey Gardner from Being There. He says this:

Clark utters meaningless bromides and gets a boost in his poll numbers. Why? Like Chauncey Gardiner, Clark is an empty vessel and as such Democrats can project any of their fantasies and hopes onto him...However, Clark evidently believes like almost all other professional politicians and their spinmeisters that the only way to get elected in 21st century America is to act like Chauncey Gardiner and make a lot of pretty noises, but say nothing. I fear that they could be right.

In the comments section, someone by the name of arthur responded to Bailey with this (emphasis mine):

Stupid argument. "Pro-choice" is a specific position on a specific policy issue that many Americans disagree with. "Pro affirmative action" is not only a specific position, it is an unpopular one. The other two lines are less controversial, but the idiot here isn't the candidate, it's the critic who assumes that the candidate has nothing to say about issues that don't fit into the first one second soundbite of the campaign. Elaboration is already available from Clark, and more will follow.

My emerging -- and quite possibly ridiculous -- theory is that it is in fact the responsibility of a campaigning candidate to make sure that I, Joe Average consumer of public ideas, be exposed to his "elaboration" quickly, concisely, and in a manner consistent with the presentation of the "first one second soundbite."

Bailey quotes Clark issuing seven pronouncements; Arthur insists some of them are specific, and the first is arguably more general than specific (partial birth abortion? Second trimester? Rape? Lots of variables in there). Two out of seven isn't a good ratio of elaboration and substance to general vacuities.

Arthur suggests that the substance is there. My question is "where?" I'd imagine that I'm not unlike many other people in that I only go so far to sound out candidates. If I can't apprehend their ideas on specific issues quickly and efficiently then I begin to assume they've got nothing to say. If they've got their seconds-long window of soundbite opportunity, then they can just as soon say something specific, tailored to whatever audience they're standing in front of. Quickly, those quotes will compile in the collective consciousness of people who pay any attention at all, people like me, and instead of a laundry list of bromides, we might have a list that's heavy on elaboration and specifics. Then at least there'd be something to consider come November. It's the candidate's job to make sure I know what s/he believes. Concisely, efficiently, cleanly. If the candidate fails to do that job, they fail to get my vote. Rather simple really.

Oops...forgot that I stay out of politics!