There's been a great deal of discussion in the blogosphere lately about who Dean should choose as his running mate. This, of course, presupposes that Dean will get the nod for the Democratic nomination--which, while extremely likely at this point, is not yet a done deal. Nevertheless, given his momentum and the way most of the rest of the candidates seem to be polling at or below the Sharpton line, I don't think it's too early to start considering this.

Kos, in particular, seems to be of the opinion that once Dean gets the nomination, he should pick General Wesley Clark as his running mate. This is based largely on the perception that Clark shores up Dean's weaknesses, and vice-versa. There is a certain degree of truth to this: Clark's biggest strength as former NATO Supreme Allied Commander is foreign policy creds; this is perceived as one of Dean's weaknesses as former governor of Vermont. Clark is also perceived as more centrist than Dean, and to a certain degree appeals to Southern voters.

I have very little against Clark as a candidate. I don't think he's the best one we can offer, and like most of them I have some policy agreements and disagreements with him. Ultimately, if he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him with no reservations or feelings that mine is a "lesser evil" vote. But taking him on as a VP would be throwing away some much better possibilities:

• Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico. A former UN Ambassador with the experience and connections to help mend fences with all those whose rugs we've been crapping on in the last few years. He has Washington experience, he's Latino, and the state of New Mexico has been trending Democratic recently--Richardson on the ticket would help it go blue this year.
• Bob Graham, former candidate for the '04 race. He has a lengthy history of Senate experience, and is a former Governor of Florida--an extremely popular Governor at the time, as well. This could very well help tip Florida into the blue column this year--which, while possible without Graham, would be much more doable with him, and would be huge.

A number of other names have been floated, some of them good, and some of them bad. But all of the suggestions I've seen so far, including Clark, have one thing in common: they're all choices based on criteria that give Dean an increased edge in the GE.

For Clark, it's primarily about shoring up foreign policy. With Richardson, it's the minority vote and the prospect of tipping the scales in states like Arizona and New Mexico. With Graham, it's Florida and the "Southern" vote.

But when you take all of these into account, Clark's more than anything else boils down to nothing more than a "policy" bump. It's about an issue--foreign policy--and it's an issue that I'm convinced Dean can run convincingly on his own merits, and his own message. The others all bring something far more substantial to the table: a very tangible edge in specific states and voting demographics which will be crucial swing points in the election.

Furthermore, Richardson and Graham have one crucial attribute which Clark lacks: Washington political experience. This is one of the most critical strengths that Dean will require from his VP. Dean has a lot of great ideas, and the bully pulpit of the Oval Office will allow him to implement some of them. Simply having him in office will be an improvement. But when it comes to passing legislation and undoing some of the worst damage of the Bush administration, remember that for the first two years of his presidency, Dean will have to run everything past a Congress over which the GOP still has an absolute stranglehold. Any judicial appointments which Dean puts forth will be viciously and relentlessly stonewalled by DeLay and company.

In order to be effective, a Dean presidency must--absolutely MUST--have a VP who is capable of liaising with and coaxing/slapping the legislature into line. Without someone in the VP slot who has experience interfacing with Congress, Dean will spend the first two years--if not his entire term--crippled legislatively.

While I'm not blind to the potential benefits that Clark brings, especially in an era where national security is a more important voter issue than ever, I think most of the other choices bring far more to the table in places where we need them far more.