Now that the race is on, it's looking more and more to me as if the Democratic presidential candidate will be not Howard Dean, but Wesley Clark. Clark is coming up fast from behind, and if he does well in the Iowa caucuses (without having mounted a campaign there), this will be a sign that the voters are ready for him.

What the polls say at this point is largely irrelevant. Wesley Clark can run on his ethos as a general, and continue making strong statements about how 9-11 never would have happened had he been president, and how he'll make sure something like that never happens again.

What remains to be seen is who Clark's vice presidential candidate will be.

The Clintons are backing him all the way, because of course, they fear Dean getting control of the party machinery and firing Terry McAuliffe. But what about General Clark as the anti-Hillary? If he manages to pull off a win, she's history unless she stages an insurgency movement in 2008. That's why I find myself wondering whether Clark is preordained to lose. A sort of sparring partner who'll beat up on George W. Bush -- not enough to win, but just enough to keep the Democrats alive, intact, and ready for Hillary's Big Moment.

A guy like Clark might not be so easy to control -- unless the Clintons have him by the balls.

(Who knows what may have been in those FBI files, or in the White House Data Base.....)

UPDATE: I don't mean to be cynical, because I am really more of a Stoic than a Cynic. Although the word "cynic" (Latin cynicus, Greek kunikos) means dog-like! The Greeks believed in teaching certain dog-like qualities -- hence the "uncouth and aggressive manners adopted by the members of the [Cynic] school."

Cool! Er, I guess I mean woof! I always liked South Park Republicans!

And packs.