I am proud of all our candidates, but find myself favoring Dean and Clark about equally. Clearly Dean has paid his dues more than Clark to our party, but that doesn't get translated into any electoral advantage. Now we have to sit around and watch everyone weaken each other. If the other party were fighting someone they felt as strongly about as we do about GB, they would have narrowed it down by now (as they did early through the tool of money, swamping McCain).
I actually picture, based on how the President and VP roles work, that without on the job training, as the two are perceived right now, Clark would be the more impressive president for foreign affairs, and Dean the more legislative/internal, which means the VP position. Too bad we don't elect an internal and external president. I think it's easier to learn the foreign part than the domestic, but that's not the way most non party voters see things.
How great it would be to look out for the long term good of our party, acknowledge either will make a great president, and accept the (misguided) perceptions of non true believers that we have something to fear from external threats to this country and need a soldier type in the executive position. If we could get it to happen in that order (Clark top of ticket first run) we would have 16 years guaranteed. And I say that as someone not doubting anything about Dean's ability to beat GB, just wanting some insurance. Am I missing anything?