I'm actually somewhat worried about a Clark nomination myself. Not because I think Clark himself isn't up to the job (although he's yet to convince me that he is), but because I'm afraid that a Clark candidacy ties the Dems chances to the war effort.

Clark, right now, has zero credibility on domestic issues. He's deliberately avoided explaining his stances on almost everything non-war, despite the fact that he had months to get this shit together before he declared.

But, fine. For all we know he'll unvail the world's greatest tax plan next week. I hope he does. But even still, no matter how sharp his ideas might turn out to be, just the very fact that he's a four-star general will inevitably keep the focus on the ongoing "war on terror."

And this is a problem because, although Bush is vulnerable on the war right now and probably will continue to be, he's vulnerable on pretty much any issue the Dems would want to choose. From a policy standpoint, this is a Democratic wet dream - almost every single issue can be exploited for Democratic gain by someone who's skillful enough to do it.

But that almost can't happen with Clark. No matter what he says or does, he's a military guy, and that's where the focus will be. And if this first week is any indication, that's exactly where he wants it. And that's a problem, because as concerned as people are about the war and stuff, it just doesn't directly impact their lives like healthcare and stuff does. People will vote for domestic issues over foreign ones, no matter how hard Fox News and the like tries to pretend otherwise.

I fully recognize that, conversely, Dean has almost zero cred on foreign policy issues right now, even though I agree with most of what he's said so far on foreign policy, and that this represents a challenge to the Dean campaign. But I think he can run a more effective domestic campaign, while Bush's foreign policy continues to crumble. At worst, I see this giving voters a clear choice: A candidate with a strong domestic policy but a weak foreign policy, or a candidate with a weak domestic policy whose foreign policy is obviously not working anyway.

I guess this is a long way of saying that, I see Dean as matching up to Bush's weaknesses much better than Clark.

All you have to consider in order to back Clark over the other piddling nine candidates is this: "Who could win in a general election against Mr. Bush?" Once you ask yourself this question, the answer becomes clear: Wesley K. Clark. He's the only Dem candidate that can completely abrogate the Republican's exclusive claim to National Security. Once this is accomplished, the Dems can then turn the debate towards issues where they have an advantage: the Economy (This argument could be considered a variation on Dick Morris' "Triangulation" strategy that re-elected another Rhodes scholar from Arkansas). It's real simple: either the Dems can fight on the basis of die hard ideology with Dean and lose, or they can move to the center with Clark and actually win, thus changing the course the country is currently on, rather than just bitching about it while on the sidelines and out of power.