If we support Kerry in March and not February, so what?

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

I can understand that people are anxious for the Democratic party to back a candidate and get moving, but I really don't believe that much damage is going to be done by allowing the other candidates to go through the primary process, which should end in March, a little over a month from now. I mean, what difference does it make if we all fall in line in March instead of February?

If the current front-runner is as good a candidate as he's supposed to be, then he will sweep the primaries decisively. I personally would feel much better supporting him under that scenario than because I have been "encouraged" to drop my candidate for the good of the Democratic party.

I can't speak for everybody, but I'm sure the vast majority of us here on DU will vote for the nominee. So I would just ask that all loyalty oaths and pleas for unity be withheld until such time as the nominee has his delegates all locked up and the nomination unquestionably, legitimately in hand. Anyone declaring the race over at this point is discounting a lot of hard work that a lot of people have done for their candidates, and we deserve more than that. The current front-runner is not suggesting that anyone should drop out yet, so if he's comfortable with a full primary season then that should be plenty for everyone.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. It just means less money for Kerry to spend in the GE, that's all.

[alexwcovington]

4. Ass uming

That Kerry can stand up to such scrutiny. Nobody can. In the next couple of days some big Kerry scandal is going to break and the media's going to hand Edwards the nomination on a platter.

And then the media is probably gonna screw Edwards too.

There's a pattern forming...

[x-g.o.p.er]

7. Yeah, something fishy seems to be brewing

I've noticed that, too. Whenever someone gets up a head of steam, they get butchered

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. We'll see what happens, won't we. I think we can win.

[arcos]

2. the funny thing...

is that a lot of those who insist everyone should support Kerry now were complaining when Gore endorsed Dean...

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

5. I know

There's been a lot of that going around. Whatever --- fair's fair.

[Bill McBlueState]

3. agree!

I plan to cast my vote for Howard Dean in the March 2 Massachusetts primary. If he drops out of the race on his own accord, or falls well behind *after my state's primary* I will support the front-runner.

But I'm not going to change my vote and my support now, just because people in Iowa and New Hampshire preferred someone else.

The whole point of the primary is to see which candidate has the most support, so I'm not going to pretend to support someone else this early in the process.

[creativelcro]

6. It is obvious to anybody: the later a winner is picked and the better

It forces the Repubs to keep track of many candidates instead of concentrate all the weapons on the "deaclared winner".... I would be suspicious of the motives of ANY Dem who pushes for everybody to support Kerry at this stage.

[eileen from OH]

9. The longer the race goes on

the longer the Dems get free media attention to point out the shortcomings of Bush. When there's only one, it'll be one story for that, one story for what Bush says/does. NOW it's 5 or 6 different stories, with different "takes" and issues that pile on Bush.

eileen from OH

[Toucano]

10. I agree

If it's over now, then we should just let IA, NH, SC, AZ, NM, MO, OK, and ND vote in the general election.

Would that be fair?