I got an e-mail. I'm thrilled people actually read this crap.

Why do [you] hate Wesley Clark so much? You wrote in your blog that you are for people realizing they were wrong and changing their minds. Then you blast him for it. Seriously, dude. I know you like Dean. But the guy has not created enough of a Buzz around himself. Maybe he should be the Veep, whispering in Clark's ear about welfare and education while the real President mends fences on the global scale. What would be better than a NATO veteran at the helm right now? Someone who knows when and when-not to use force as a last resort to diplomacy's failure. I know you have collected some soundbyets (sic.), but have you heard Clark speak? He is pretty compelling.

I'm not trying to dog Wesley Clark. I'd happily vote for him, and not only because he's not George Bush (or Joe Lieberman).

All I'm trying to say is that there is more egregious stuff with which Republicans can slam Clark than there is for Dean. The aforementioned prior love for George Bush and Ronald Reagan. His stance that he was always against Iraq War II is not exactly accurate. As for "someone who knows when and when-not to use force as a last resort to diplomacy's failure," there's plenty of evidence that how he handled Kosovo wasn't exactly a force-as-last-resort situation. (However, the Republicans would be hypocrites if they tried to bring that up.)

It took Arianna Huffington several years to foment her new political identity, not a few months. If Wesley Clark changed his mind, then he REALLY changed his mind, he changed it really FAST, and he can change it still in the blink of an eye. Clark smacks of a typical Republican candidate in that he's (perhaps) someone propped up by the party to tow the line and look and sound good for the cameras. I think we are all sick to death of such candidacies, and it makes me even sicker that the Democrats would (perhaps) play such a game. Do the ends justify the means? (Perhaps.)

Clark lacks experience in handling legistative-versus-executive disputes. He has skeletons in his closet, or at least enough skeleton-colored yarn to be spun into a skeletion by Karl Rove. He has contradicted himself several times in the course of the past year more maganimously than any of the other Democratic candidates. He seemingly still doesn't have a formal platform aside from his vague 100-Year-Vision. I want the candidate that stands for what I believe in, has an excellent political record, and is the least penetrable by the Republican party. So far, that candidate for me is still Dean.

With all of these reservations, I still would be thrilled to see Clark become our president. He is a compelling speaker which, despite what I said two paragraphs earlier, is indeed very important. His statements about domestic issues are right on. Even if he was for Bush before, he seems to be against him now. And to lead a NATO campaign, which involves coordinating the military might of several countries, obviously requires some serious diplomatic skill. Clark is still my #2 on the list of Democratic candidates that I like, and my list is only two people long.

Therefore, if the perception is that I'm dogging Clark, understand that I'm only arguing for the candidate that I like by playing devil's advocate with my number two.

Oh, did I mention that Howard Dean surpassed the fundraising record set by Bill Clinton's re-election campaign?