Normally this Tuesday's Topic theme I've been following these past few weeks offers a link to an article making an argument for the topic, and a link to an article which offers a counter-argument. However, while researching today's topic, Dean/Clark 2004, I honestly could not find a single source that thought that a Dean/Clark ticket was a bad idea. So, I will just offer two seperate viewpoints.
But before I do that, I would like to encourage everyone to add a comment to this post. Let me know what you think about a Dean/Clark candidacy in 2004.
Viewpoint 1:
This viewpoint is brought to us by the letter P, and also by Alan Hunt Badiner on Alternet.
"A Dean/Clark ticket unites the two most prominent critics of the Iraq war, and gives countless millions who have vowed to vote for 'anybody but Bush' a reason to believe he can be beaten."
"Adding Clark to the ticket also gives the Dean campaign at least a hint of a Southern strategy, as well as comfort to those who might fear that Dean is too soft on defense. Clark's 'New American Patriotism' emphasizing compassion and service over anger and bombast adds appeal to those put off by Dean's sharper attacks. Clark also brings considerable foreign policy experience to the table."
Viewpoint 2:
Andrew Sullivan writes in his blog:
"But he[Clark] has a critical element that the Democrats desperately need: some national security credibility and a Southern background. After all, that's why he gained traction at all. So isn't the ideal combination a Dean-Clark ticket with Clark as the vice-president? He'd be Howard Dean's Dick Cheney, the father-figure who reassures nervous centrists that they aren't just electing a crunchy, liberal space-cadet as president in a dangerous, terror-ridden world. Before Clark entered the race, Dean observed that he would make a great running mate. And, from the Democrats' point of view, it's a dream combination: you'd run on conciliating allies, focusing on nation-building in Iraq (which Clark did in the Balkans), cutting the deficit, and providing healthcare to America's children. In an electorate exhausted by the traumas of the Bush presidency, it might be quite appealing."