Do you hate me if I'm ready to pair up two candidates?

I am proud of all our candidates, but find myself favoring Dean and Clark about equally.  Clearly Dean has paid his dues more than Clark to our party, but that doesn't get translated into any electoral advantage.  Now we have to sit around and watch everyone weaken each other.  If the other party were fighting someone they felt as strongly about as we do about GB, they would have narrowed it down by now (as they did early through the tool of money, swamping McCain).

I actually picture, based on how the President and VP roles work, that without on the job training, as the two are perceived right now, Clark would be the more impressive president for foreign affairs, and Dean the more legislative/internal, which means the VP position.  Too bad we don't elect an internal and external president.  I think it's easier to learn the foreign part than the domestic, but that's not the way most non party voters see things.

How great it would be to look out for the long term good of our party, acknowledge either will make a great president, and accept the (misguided) perceptions of non true believers that we have something to fear from external threats to this country and need a soldier type in the executive position.  If we could get it to happen in that order (Clark top of ticket first run) we would have 16 years guaranteed.  And I say that as someone not doubting anything about Dean's ability to beat GB, just wanting some insurance.  Am I missing anything?

•  Re: Do you hate me if I'm ready to pair up two can

  I forgot to mention that my personal favorite candidate is Edwards; I really respond to his arguments and detailed position papers.  I leave him out because I think I'm seeing how strong the other two are in many eyes.

  by jm1963 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 10:11:08 PM PDT

  •  Re: Do you hate me if I'm ready to pair up two can

    Edwards is like Clark, only replace the whole "four-star general" thing with "trial lawyer."  He's never held a full term of any political office.  I still like him, and he does have plenty of policies, but I think we'd be better off making him VP or, even better, governor of NC, and having him run as a stellar candidate for president later with the campaign experience and raised name recognition from this run plus the resume qualifications of elected office experience.

    by Michael D on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 10:42:46 PM PDT

•  I've been saying this. . .

  I've been talking about a Dean/Clark ticket for a while, but reversed from your view: Dean as President, Clark as VP. I think Dean's executive experience makes him a better choice for President, and Clark would get four (and hopefully eight) years of on the job training.

  by Don in NYC on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 11:24:22 PM PDT

  •  Re: I've been saying this. . .

    I agree Dean as Gov has compelling resume (but simple people will find the size of his state as a big nullifying qualifier, even though there are mayors with more power and responsibility than the Gov of TX had when elected), and that Clark is light on non military leadership history (GOP will say that congress doesn't follow orders and he doesn't know any other method, and idiots will not know enough about NATO command structure/coalition building skills to overcome this).  That's as far as rationality gets us.  What do you have to say about this:  Voters in aggregate are not rational, but emotional - why else would we have either the President we have or the Gov-elect in CA?  If you grant a certain level of voter image seeking as incurable, but want to benefit from it, we look more for international affairs from our president, and that resumes and image favor Clark in that?

    by jm1963 on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 03:11:55 AM PDT

•  Dean as VP

  Not going to happen.  I love Dean, and I support him for president, but he'd chafe as VP.  If he served under Clark I could see a "Davis vs. Bustamante" tension writ large.

  by Passing Shot on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 04:01:18 AM PDT