And yet it was considered a virtual fait accompli that Colin Powell would have taken the nomination of any party he chose to run with. Well, at least pre-Bush.
And, of course, Colin Powell had no interest whatsoever in running, either.
There’s no surer bet for the presidency than someone who isn’t running. 
We might need a “dictatorial” President (NOT a dictator) who can unite the country and through sheer popular will shove things through Congress (much as Lincoln and FDR did).
I almost put my head right through the computer screen at that.
In my history books, Lincoln and FDR got as much work done with Congress - emphasis on with - because the opposition party had essentially collapsed. The only obstacles were opposing factions within the Republican and Democratic Party respectively. That helps a bill’s passage remarkably.
That may happen again in some future, but without it there will never be a “dictatorial” president like the one you are falsely imagining.
Clark didn’t exactly set the world on fire. Neither did McCain.
Bush Sr at least was a combat vet and so the most recent one. Not sure if anyone could classify Junior as a veteran with a straight face.
All the US presidents who were generals except maybe Jackson were not radicals of any sort: Washington, Taylor, Grant, Hayes (yes he was a general), Eisenhower.
And yet you hate Lyndon Johnson who was the last President who was able to shove things through Congress.
Washington led an armed insurrection against his government. That’s about as radical as you can get.
You are still succumbing to the notion that a popular war hero can unite the whole country. Even at the height of Petraeus’ popularity, this simply wasn’t true. It is easy for a candidate to be popular when he’s only known for one thing and doesn’t have to take positions on any issues.
And Lincoln united the country? That would be news to Lincoln. He wasn’t on the ballot in most of the Southern states during either election, the country was at war with itself for almost all of his presidency, and just after the war ended, he was shot to death. What he accomplished was not done through sheer popular will. I would say a large part of it was done because the people who were the most opposed to him started a war against the United States and had no political power during the war or immediately after it ended.
This is the politics version of the old football chestnut “The fans don’t like anyone more than the back up quarterback.”
I admit, I couldn’t resist double-checking this and was surprised to learn that both presidents named Harrison had been army generals: William Henry Harrison in the war of 1812, his grandson Benjamin Harrison in the Civil War.
I thought you were referring to the older Harrison and was preparing to point out Grant.