http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4620539.html(snip)
CNN and its ilk had been relentlessly repeating the results of a poll that showed that Kerry would beat the president in a head-to-head battle. But they did not mention that the poll showed Edwards also would win against Bush, with Wesley Clark just a couple of points behind.
Meanwhile, Kerry is racking up the endorsements from politicians who want to rally around the front-runner (or assure their place in a Kerry administration), and his victory is seen as inevitable well before Democratic voters in most states have had their say.
But this early certainty is exactly what Democratic National Committee chair Terry McAuliffe had hoped for. There used to be a six-week break between Iowa and New Hampshire and the rest of the primaries; time for any irrational exuberance from wins in those states to be contained, and time for other candidates to mount their stands. But McAuliffe didn't want the Democratic candidate broke and broken before the battle against Bush even begun, so he "front-loaded" the primaries to ensure a quick and easy victory for one candidate -- any candidate.
(snip)
A long, combative process ensures that the Democrats nominate someone who is up to the election fight. We need the strongest, most formidable, and most thoroughly-vetted candidate possible to survive the battle against Team Bush and its piles of gold.
This drive toward an early coronation belies the entire point of the primary process, which is to pick the man who would be both the best nominee and the best president. Instead, we have picked the man who ran the best race in Iowa, which is hardly the same thing.
(snip)