Yes, I am a proud Deaniac, but this is not another diary about how Dean would have won the nomination if the primary season had not been
compressed, thus assuring a win in the general.
Instead, it is a judgement of the process itself. We were told that a compressed season would yield a better candidate because he would be unbloodied, undamaged. This line of thought assumes that if Democrats do not find and exploit a candidate's weakness, the Republicans will not find them during the election. How stupid is that?
Kerry did emerge with nary a mark on him, and as a result committed all sorts of blunders precisely because his weaknesses had not been identified during the primary.
Dean took fire for months as the frontrunner, indeed, as much fire as a candidate in the general recieves as he was attacked from all sides. If the primary had not been compresses and he had won the nomination do you think he would have repeated the "scream" incident in the general that played to the stereotype of "unbalanced"?
If Kerry had been subjected to similar heat the "swifties" would have already surfaced, and Kerry never would have been caught dead windsurfing on tape. Is George Bush less "elitest" than Kerry? Nope, but he has learned to hide that side from public view.
Even the best candidate has weaknesses that the other side will try to exploit. The primary process should be used to expose these weaknesses, so the nominee can play to thier strenghts and avoid playing into thier enemies hands in the general election.