I like Wes Clark a lot, but he just confirmed my decision to support Dean.
Judy Woodruff just got Clark in a corner about whether Dean offered him the VP spot. And Clark hedged, but basically committed himself to saying that Dean is lying about having offered Clark the VP spot. that's more likely to work against him than for him.
This is a nontrivial strategic mistake, because strategy is all about keeping your options open and staying close to as many power centers as possible.
the assertion is not great for Dean, but all Dean has to do is keep his mouth shut and move on, whereas Clark now has narrowed his choices such that even if he wins the candidacy he will get no support from the Dean machine.
This is not good for the party, not good for the country, and not good for the Clark campaign. the Clark campaign has just committed itself to an adversarial position wrt the Dean campaign, with the only strategic benefit being to make Clark the anti-Dean.
and while the "anti-Dean" position may be a center of power in the beltway, nobody else cares. anti-Dean only works for Clark if he beats Dean in some early primaries. otherwise it's Clark's credibility that suffers.
disclaimer: I like Clark's positions a lot, I'm aware of my own confirmation bias, and I think he's a good candidate and would make a good POTUS. my point is that his campaign just showed a lack of abstract strategic thinking at a time when strategy pretty important.