Currently John Kerry, because I believe he is the most electable.
This article pretty much sums it up:http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/3/meyerson-h.html
And this section brings it on home:
"If the economy comes roaring back, and all the secondary consequences of a war with Iraq prove positive, of course, it doesn't matter in the slightest how Kerry or any Democrat campaigns. But if Bush's fantasy remedies fail to cure our real-world ills, we may well come to that moment in the fall of 2004 when a nervous right trains its guns on Kerry's unfitness for the post of commander in chief. And the moment when Kerry responds by talking about his war record, and perhaps even asks the president to explain his (spent chiefly AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard), and that of his vice president (who needed five separate deferments to keep him far from Vietnam). "
There ain't nothing like that in Howard Dean's arrow quiver
In addition, I believe a Dean nomination hurtles us to a potential trainwreck ala McGovern '72 analogy. And as a "neighbor" of the former Governor of Vt., I have to chuckle at the hubris of his 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party' line:http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030526&s=farrell
And there is no way there will be a 'two liberals from the Northeast' (Kerry/Dean) ticket in 2004. My hunch is that Sen. Bob Graham, out of swing state Florida, will be someone's VP candidate.