quote:

---

WITH THE DEMOCRATIC race all but over, party officials may be quite satisfied: From their point of view, the process worked. As they hoped, the front-loaded calendar will produce an early nominee with a minimum of internecine bloodshed.

From the perspective of producing a candidate with the credibility to take on an incumbent president, the system also performed well.

Did the process work as well for voters? This year's calendar was more relentless than ever, with almost no pause between contests and little opportunity, after Iowa and New Hampshire, for voters to get more than a glimpse of the contenders.

The pace left most voters little chance for a sustained look at candidates, producing results often based largely on momentum from the previous week's contest. Voters deserve better, and while the process seems to have worked to the party's benefit this time, a momentum-fueled candidate may not always be the strongest one. Party officials ought to rethink the schedule for 2008.

---

(paraphrased/summarized)

I'm not sure I was happy with this primary system. Does Kerry really offer the brightest hope of defeating Bush in November? Had the primary season been more spread out, I think more people would have taken a closer look at Edwards, who had some excellent ideas and really *did* appeal to constituencies outside the Democratic base. An analysis of Georgia's vote, county-by-county, showed Kerry winning primarily African-American districts and Edwards picking up the white vote, both rich and poor.

*thinks* I'd certainly have liked to have *my* vote counted. But Pennsylvania, of course, doesn't vote until April.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
We'll never really know now, but I feel Edwards would have more of a chance in a more developed primary season.

He was simply more likeable than Kerry, was eloquent in pointing out not just problems but answers, and doesn't have any strings tied to him.

Kerry looks strong now, but honestly, his personality is only marginally more inviting than Al Gore's. And with so many years in the Senate, I do view him as more a part of the problem than an answer to them.

But what do I know, I'm just a lowly voter in a swing state.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I would have seriously considering voting Edwards in November. He says some things I like.

Kerry, though, has no chance of getting my vote.

Not that Edwards would have automatically had it, (he would still have quite a few obstacles to oovercome) but I am so disappointed in Bush, I would have been willing consider him.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
I just figured on writing in my own name, so it's all relative.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Edwards is STRONGLY tied to trial lawyers. Something like 75% of his contributions were from lawyers.

He may have fewer numbers of puppeteers, but he still has a few.

-Bok
 

---