A Contest Up To The Convention?

Not a few Democrats deplore the the fact that the party has not yet settled on a candidate. I'm afraid that I can't join them in their concern. In the olden days, choosing a candidate at the convention was the norm.

Athenae of First Draft, aka Allison Hantschel, has a column in the Southtown Star on this very subject. She says:

I may be alone in this, but I, for one, hope the Democratic primary campaign goes all the way to the last primary.

A long, knock-down, drag-out fight is presumed to harm an eventual nominee, leaving him or her damaged and weakened from months of attacks by primary opponents, crippled by debt racked up in early states and just plain used up, all the good arguments already expended on the trail. Easy pickings for the opposition.

Hantshel is not alone, because I agree with her. I don't see the dangers that she mentions coming to be. In the first place, the original purpose of the national political conventions was to choose the candidates for president and vice-president. But, as though our campaign cycle is not long enough, states have moved their primaries and caucuses to earlier and earlier dates, so that by the time of the party conventions, the candidates have long been anointed. The conventions provide little in the way of suspense or excitement and have become mostly boring, cheer-leading affairs.

Think how tired we'll all be of John McCain by November. That the Democrats still have a contest going puts McCain somewhat in the shadows. Plus, the Democratic strategists have one specific target to go after, while the Republicans' plan of attack is more difficult, because, for the present, they have two moving targets.

Hantschel goes on to say:

However, so long as the race stays relatively clean, a longer Democratic contest can only benefit both major candidates.

In the first place, it grants relevancy to later-calendar states like Wyoming, North Dakota and Wisconsin, whose choices in these contests have been nearly beside the point in past elections. The more states feel they have a role in choosing the nominee, the more Democrats will be involved in and have ownership of that nominee's particular political fortunes

I'd hope that the Democratic candidates don't get down and dirty in campaigning against each other. If they do, it could backfire and hurt more than help. I believe they know that.

For the first time in many years, my vote in a primary has counted for something. Usually, it's all over by the time we vote. Even in primaries later than ours in Louisiana, folks will have their chance to make a difference, and I see that as entirely a good thing.

I'll be watching to see how the Republicans drum up any excitement at all about John McCain at their convention. I saw in the news today that he has promised not to raise taxes. Surprise, surprise! A Republican who will not raise taxes! He'll have his 100 year deployment of our troops in Iraq and will ask no sacrifices of the rest of the citizens. The cost will be passed on to our children and grandchildren, and perhaps even our great-grandchildren. Could he possibly be a worse president than Bush? I thought that no one could be worse, but I'm beginning to have doubts.

As for the Democrats, on with the race, on with the challenges, on with the excitement.