FORGET Dean/Clark OR Clark/Dean

[bain_sidhe]

This post got buried in another thread, so I thought I'd give it it's own thread, and expand a bit...

Clark and Dean represent radically different election strategies. Clark is the "reach out to disaffected moderates and Republicans" strategy (and also lull a portion of the Republican base into not turning out, since he doesn't seem to be such a "threat" to the military they hold near and dear). If he gets the nod, he should choose a moderate with Congressional experience. I expect to see him doing a lot of campaigning with both the military and veterans, southerners, and campaigning in districts/areas represented by moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats.

Dean is the "fire up the base" strategy. Notice I didn't say "represent the base" - in many ways, he doesn't. What he *does* do is include them, and excite them. If he gets the nomination, he should choose a running mate with solid liberal credentials - Kunicich maybe, or somebody not even running right now. And, like Clark, he also should find a running mate with congressional experience, because both of them will need a doppleganger to handle congressional relations. If Dean gets the nomination, I expect him to spend a lot of time in "liberal" (relative to the general area's population) minority, and working class pockets of otherwise conservative areas.

IMHO, *either* strategy has a chance to win against bush*... but ONLY if the candidate commits to their strategy 100%. To put Dean and Clark together is to straddle the fence, and that, (also in my (still humble) opinion) is unlikely to win. If you're gonna go for it, swing for the fences, or don't bother. Nothing less than an all out effort on your chosen strategy will win. I personally think Clark's strategy has a *better* chance, which is why I'm supporting him, but I'm not saying that the Dean strategy *won't* work. (I do have a small caveat, though... firing up *our* base will also fire up *their* base, since they will feel (no doubt with a subtantial nudge from Rove) more "threatened" by the specter of a Dean Presidency.)

And, as I said on the other thread, in the interests of full disclosure, I have another, less noble reason, for wanting to squash Dean/Clark speculations... as a Clark supporter, I've been so disgusted with Dean supporters' attacks on Clark here that every time I see a "Dean/Clark" headline I want to scream "Don't expect MY candidate to save YOUR sorryass candidate's butt on the foreign/military issue. If you want military/foreign policy experience on the ticket, VOTE for it in the primary." But then (still in full-disclosure mode), I'm pretty much generally in a "f*ck you" mood these days. It could just be hormones or something.

Nonetheless, I really DO believe the candidate winning the nomination has to pick a strategy and go all out with it, so it's not ALL hormones.

Dunno if this will get any more notice than it did in the other thread, but I just had to say it or my head would explode, and I *just* cleaned my monitor.

[WillyBrandt]

1. This is wrong: Clark/Dean can work

I'm not saying it will happen, but Clark/Dean allows us to:

(1) Bring on Dean's virtues (political skill, fighting will, basic talent) while relegating his vices (possible problems in the South, etc.) to the sidelines

(2) Unify the Democratic party for the 2004 elections

(3) Give the Deanies a victory, of sort. They'll at least have gotten their guy to the VP slot, with a chance in 2012, and will frankly get to co-opt much of the campaign

(4) The resources of both the Clark and Dean camps, especially the great talents and masses of the Dean one

(5) Political consistency on the ticket. These two guys actually have similar political views, and there are few policy contradictions we'd have to resolve

(6) The perfect guys to fight their GOP counterparts. Bush is a poseur, Cheney is a crook. Clark is a liberal warrior, Dean is a no-shit-taking doctor.

I actually think we can pursue both strategies in the general election. I don't think that Dean/Clark can maintain the four points above; there's a simple lack of political symmetry here. But Clark/Dean, I think, is literally unbeatable.

[bain_sidhe]

2. Well... not sure on that

I don't think Dean's supporters would have the same fire if he was second slot -and yet, having him on the ticket *would* fire up the Republican base, IMHO. Or at least, prevent them from sitting on thier hands due to their dissatisfaction with bush*

But, I confess, I don't know that for sure, not being a Dean supporter. So, let's ask *them* -- YO! Dean supporters! Do you think you'd be as fired up and willing to work if Dean was in the VP slot instead of at the top of the ticket?

[IronLionZion]

8. Hell YES!!!

I am fired up for a democratic candidate I'd like to call Anyone But Bush (ABB)!

[napi21]

10. From a STRONNG Dean supporter

I want President Dean because I really believe he would bring back some straight forward truthfulness to the Presidency that is sorely missing in this one.

BUT, if he does not win the nomination, I will just as strongly support the Democrt, whoever it is.

I want President Dean, but I want Bush GONE by any means necessary!

[jumptheshadow]

11. I have mixed feelings on this one

Willy, you're as logical as usual. And, to support your theory, a Dean campaign coordinator walked by me as I was petitioning this weekend and yelled: Dean/Clark.

But my gut feeling is: It probably won't happen. Clark wouldn't accept the number two spot in a Dean administration, and Dean won't offer it to him.

[Melodybe]

3. Why can't we have the best of both worlds?

I think that everyone should support their candidate in the primaries and not just vote for who they think will win. Go for personal favorites, this is our chance to stand up and be counted. It is very important to get these numbers, it will give us an idea of the overall mood (liberal/moderate). But once the primaries are over, it is time to focus on the prize! We have to get them elected! I am for a Dean/Clark ticket because I don't think that we have to choose between them, we NEED and DESERVE both. Why limit ourselves to just Dean or just Clark? The 2 camps might have plenty of differences but we each bring something important to the table. Actually this year we have a very descent representation of the different types of democrats. I am very glad that so many people are running, everyone brings something vital to the race. Except Lieberman, he is a traitor and is not on our side.

If all of the democrats do not come together by election time we are definitely screwed. We would deserve what Bu$h and company have in store because we could not stop squabbling long enough to fix what is so badly broken, when it is SOOO easy if we actually try to work together.

I just had a baby four months ago, I know hormones, you have my sympathy. I have been channeling them into organizing voter registration drives, maps to the polls, and campaigning. To be as active as possible helps make things feel better, or at least it has worked for me.

YAY 200 posts! By this time next year I will have over 2000!

[Melodybe]

4. To answer your question, yes. I will campaign for the nominee.

Both are men that I am happy to support, and I will pound the pavement for he/she that wins the primaries. I love my home, family, and country, I am not in a rush to flee any of them.

[Jerseycoa]

5. To the best of both worlds!

:pals:


:dem:

[jjmalonejr]

7. Won't Happen

I don't think Clark would choose Dean as a running mate. I can see Dean making overtures towards Clark (actually, he already has), but I don't think Clark would accept.

[IronLionZion]

9. Lieberman is easy to bash

because he's a conservative orthodox Jewish hawk. But he's no traitor. He is still on our side and wants to get rid of Bush. Zell Miller is even easier to bash for the simple fact that he supports Bush. Never mind that both supported Clinton and Carter. Old Zell needs to retire, but Lieberman needs to remain a US Senator from Connecticut.

[bain_sidhe]

14. agree some, disagree some...

I think that everyone should support their candidate in the primaries and not just vote for who they think will win. Go for personal favorites, this is our chance to stand up and be counted. It is very important to get these numbers, it will give us an idea of the overall mood (liberal/moderate).

I agree with this, except that I think the numbers we'll get won't be "liberal/moderate" so much as "new (or returning) base voters who've previously felt ignored/taken for granted (Dean) and liberal-leaning centrists who've been unimpressed with recent candidates (Clark). (Hoping that made sense... it's late, and I was about to sign off but wanted to respond to this.)

I also agree that we're screwed if we don't come together after the primaries. But I do think Clark would turn off *some* of the Dean supporters, and Dean would turn off some of the Clark supporters. Enough to make a difference? Maybe. Either way, it's going to be a tough fight, and I think a Dean candidacy might need to have more things break *just right* to succeed. (Meaning I think Clark has a bit more breathing room.) But that's me. I know Dean supporters believe the exact opposite, and to my knowledge, none of them are insane, so there's always the possibility they might be right.

And, of course, bottom line, I'm supporting Clark because I think he'll be a better *President* than Dean will. I feel that I lucked out in that preference, because I also happen to think he's a better candidate to go up against bush*.

But, nothing against your guy ... and as all of the candidates have said, ANY of our guys would be a better President than the resident.

**edit: fumblefingers. bookmarking the thread and going to bed!**

[Gore1FL]

6. Its not too much of a shock really

Very rarely was the nominated VP a contender for the top job in the race for nomination tot he top job. -- It happened just once in the last 30 years!

2000:
Cheney -- Did not run
Leiberman -- did not run

1996:
Gore -- Did not run
Kemp -- Did not run

1992:
Gore -- Did not run
Quayle -- Did not run

1988
Quayle -- Did not run
Bentson -- Did not run

1984
Bush -- Did not run
Ferraro -- Did not run

1980
Bush -- RAN
Mondale -- did not run

1976
Mondale -- Did not run
Dole -- Did not run

1972
Agnew -- Did not run
Eagleton/Shriver -- Did not run

[Melodybe]

12. So are you saying that someone's ego will get in the way

of our best chance?

Hands down: Clark/Dean, Dean/Clark is our best chance! If one of them can not put aside their differences and egos (I am thinking more of Dean when I say ego) for the greater good, they they are not as great as I thought they were. I think that Dean would have a hard time being VP, but if the majority of primary voters wants Clark, so be it. It is Dean's duty to the American people for sending him so much money to accept the VP slot. His supporters need some motivation to campaign for the nominee.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I am saying....

That we are receiving letters from New Hampshire from Dean voters saying that Clark will be Dean's VP. So that is the story that is being spread around, and that is a disingenious way to sell one's candidate that can't be sold on his own. Here is what Clark is saying about all of this:

xnay to VP for Dean....

salon.com
http://tinyurl.com/z9tg
Clark: Howard Dean can't win
Wesley Clark says Dean lacks national security credibility -- and throws cold water on the idea of a Dean-Clark dream ticket
--------------
With the presidential campaign of Howard Dean building strong momentum even before the primary elections, the idea has returned to fashion in Democratic political circles that retired Gen. Wesley Clark is in the race primarily to become Dean's running mate. As a hypothetical scenario, it makes good sense: Dean is a charismatic former governor from New England with strong progressive backing, but he lacks foreign policy experience; Clark is an accomplished warrior who has negotiated on behalf of America and its allies at the highest international levels, and he is expected to have strong appeal in more conservative Southern and Western states.

nd so, the thinking goes, Howard Dean and Wes Clark would make a Democratic dream date in November 2004.

But just 48 hours before before the capture of Saddam Hussein outside of Tikrit, Clark made his strongest statement to date about why a Dean-Clark ticket is a bad idea. Clark, who says that he's uniquely qualified to go "toe-to-toe" with President Bush on security issues in 2004, said that whether he's on the ticket or not, the Democrats can't win with Dean as their presidential candidate.

"I don't think the Democratic Party can win without carrying a heavy experience in national security affairs into the campaign," he told Salon in a phone interview last week. "And that experience can't be in a vice president."

[LandOLincoln]

15. Have to admit I was disappointed to see this article.

I'm a hardcore Clarkie, and it's hard to imagine him playing second banana to anyone, but I'd like to think he AND Howard Dean are capable of bagging their egos for the sake of the country.

And I think the General needs to stop listening to Chris Lehane NOW.

[Gore1FL]

16. I haven't seen the polling data

that says Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark is our best chance. I would need to look at the electoral math of these and other combinations before I would agree. I am not saying you are wrong, I just don't think there has been enough(any?) research done to make that conclusion.

What I have seen is a long history of Nominees picking a VP that usually is not someone they ran against. Therefore, I wouldn't be shocked if there was no statistical anomoly this time and the VP came from elsewhere.

[Josh]

17. I think it'll be Bob Graham for VP -

assuming either Dean or Clark are nominated. I also don't think they'll pick each other. Don't have a full opinion on it yet either. But my gut says Graham's the Veep.

[SheilaT]

18. To think that

Clark would choose Dean or Dean would choose Clark as a running mate is foolish. To think that ANY of the other candidates will wind up as VP candidate is lacking in imagination.

I think Josh is right in that Graham is the likeliest choice by Dean for VP, and I'm basing that on what Dean himself said at a fundraiser when asked which of the other candidates he liked best. This was back when Graham was still in the race.

The eight candidates are by no means the only choices out there.

[blm]

19. Dean will pick Evan Bayh, his longtime friend.

It will make an appearance that Dean is being inclusive to the centrists when all along he has been a centrist himself while rhetorically sounding the populist horn.

And, of course, people will see their fearless leader as once again being a "pragmatist" with that stroke of genius decision. Never mind that Bayh was one of those pulling the party to the right alongside his old DLC buddy Dean.

[bain_sidhe]

20. If he goes the "centrist" route

One, I think it's a mistake (goes back to committing to his "strategy" - he needs a populist, at least, if not a liberal), but two, if he does, I think there are far better choices than Bayh... I agree with Josh, Graham would be good. Actually, Graham would be good for either Clark OR Dean. Better for Clark, as he brings experience in both Congress and Executive branch (Graham was a governor too, right?).