We've gone and started a debate.

I think that Wes Clark's Deaniac appeal would actually bring in quite a few of those Dean folks that are still disenfranchised, and think Kerry is a bit too insidery. I remember myself dreaming of a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket a few months back, and those sentiments are shared by quite a few.

I think in the light of recent events, the Michael Moore thing wouldn't hold as much ground, if any at all. I think people gained from Moore's Clark excitement was probably less than people annoyed by it, and certainly, anyone that is already voting for John Kerry isn't likely to switch after a VP slot, so it almost seems as if it's nothing to lose, everything to gain. Moore's radical appeal is actually a plus considering Wes himself has something of a centrist populist thing going, and an appeal to independent voters.

I agree that he probably would bring Arkansas even without the VP slot, but the defense and national security credentials, hell, no one comes close.

His weakness that you point out, is that he can sometimes be a poor politician. His performance on MTP, as well as his substantially poor primary campaign go to show this. All that said, I don't think it's anything that can't be hammered out by an experienced staff, and it's head and shoulders above the weaknesses brought by the other top tier candidates.

Sam Nunn, however, would be a good choice as well. His problem though as I see it is his lack of name recognition, and a guy that goes for the center rather than energizes the base. As I mentioned long ago (what, last week?) when you threw his name out in the comments section, a DLC candidate doesn't really inspire me, but my vote was decided a while back, so does that really matter?