in the event of a terrorist attack or some major national security crisis, i could see democratic supporters flocking to clark.  it's a distinct possibility, considering the state of international affairs.

i would agree that he seems a long-shot at this point, but you can't deny that democrats would benefit from his presence in a presidential campaign.

He's not been off active service long enough to be eligible to serve as Sec Def. He could be Sec of State though. I believe he'd make a strong VP for many of the other canidates, but he's previously made statements that don't lead me to believe he may not be willing to serve as anyone's VP - "I won't be anybodies Dick Cheney."

If Clark decides not to run, I think he would make an excellent VP for either Edwards or Obama.  I think the assumption on the part of the voters in 2008 would be that as VP, Clark would be in a position to regularly (in every meeting) provide the president with a top notch national security perspective.

If Clark decides to run, and he loses the nomination, I still think he would make an excellent VP for either Edwards or Obama.  In fact, at this point, I would bet that he will be the VP candidate in 2008.  

Don't forget that the most successful Democratic ticket in the last 40 years had two southerners on it: Clinton and Gore. The most politically pragmatic ticket for 2008 would be Edwards/Clark.  I realize that such a pragmatic argument, based as it is in actual history, is lost on a lot of idealistic Democrats, but it is nevertheless the truth.    

Oh, I think he'll run.

;)

I tend to agree.

The one thing I would say that is a little peculiar to a Clark candidacy is that I think last time, and again, I think this time, he is going to have trouble getting traction on domestic issues.  And yes, of course, I fully anticipate wonderful domestic policy speeches like this one that sound good...to those of us who actually read them.  

But for low info voters in the primaries (about what 70%?) he is always going to be "the General," and to the extent that they are looking for a candidate who lines up with their domestic wishes, he will not have appeal.  

As a matter of common sense, a general has absolutely no legislative or domestic policy experience.  When you listen to Clark, he sounds like a very intelligent general...because...well that is what he is.  Again, as a matter of common sense, how would a general "work" with Congress to pass legislation?  There is going to be a certain square peg into a round hole assumption.  

Accordingly, aside and apart from Clark's merits, I see his electoral prospects being largely determined by the course of the Iraq war.  If the Iraq war is still a smoldering mess by 2008, and the electorate is fixated on the singular need to somehow solve that smoldering mess, I think his electoral prospects improve.  On the other hand, if there is some bipartisan plan by the end of this year, for bringing the war to a close, his prospects diminish.  

Regretably, I suspect that the war will in fact still be a smoldering mess in 2008.  As such, I would not write Clark off.  

I tend to agree that he has improved.  With respect to Iowa, he made the unfortunate decision to skip Iowa in 2004, an insult to the state's voters.  If he decides to run, it will be interesting to see if there is any residual anger over his 2004 decision.  (Clark then fared very poorly in New Hampshire...Are they going to suddenly warm up to him this time?)

On the issue of intellect, Kerry struck me as at least as intellectual as Clark (perhaps on different subjects).  I am not sure if glaring intellect sells to the voters.

More than any candidate, Clark's prospects are closely tied to the war.  If Democrats chose "the General", it will be because of Iraq, and his seeming ability to solve it...not his stump speeches or his intellect.