Assuming Dean would eventually have found more professional campaign management (Trippi claims he ALWAYS planned to quit after the NH primary, although I don't believe him), would it have been better to have a campaign that took Bush head on on the issues from day one instead of the tactical campaign Kerry ran?
Dean would have blistered Bush on the economic issues. He promised to go to the South and ask people what they have to show for 30 years of voting for Republicans. Maybe he wouldn't have gotten more of their votes, but I don't see how the fundies could have turned out against him in larger numbers than they did against Kerry (the main concern about a Dean candidacy, as I recall).
In the meantime, Dean and especially Clark would have made the case from the start of the general election campaign that Bush was totally blowing the war on terror -- not just that they could do it "smarter" as Kerry claimed. Dean and Clark would have been able to take on the Iraq issue without any caveats about why they supported the resolution. They would have shined a light on Abu Ghraib instead of letting the issue die. Ditto the outing of Valerie Plame, etc.
I know the GOTV effort for Kerry was impressive, but imagine what it would have been like for Dean/Clark.....
I'm the first to say we cannot take ANY chances next time and should nominate someone like Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, who could take his home state plus Ohio and WV to ensure an electoral victory, but part of me wonders what might have been with Dean/Clark this time. Even if they lost, they would have stood for something, giving us something to build on when Iraq and the deficit spin out of control....