Kerry is toast! Let’s move on to Edwards

Only a couple of hours after John Kerry pretty much sewed up the Democratic nomination, there’s a chorus of “How the hell did that happen?”

Here’s WashPost Editor Robert Kaiser in a Q&A session:

Washington, D.C.: "How did this race end so quickly? I haven't made my decision yet, but I feel like its already been made for me. Is there any hope they we will have any true choices come Super Tuesday?"

Robert G. Kaiser : "A great many people share this view. Blame the Democratic National Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, whose idea this schedule apparently was. As David Broder said in a chat here this week, it's a ridiculous schedule, which works against any real competition after the first three weeks or so. A miracle could happen, but it nearly would take a miracle now to head off Kerry. That's the fault of the schedule. It's also Kerry's accomplishment, of course."

Kerry’s “accomplishment” could be a disaster for the Democrats because the compressed primary schedule has short-circuited the normal decision process. Here's Andrew Sullivan:

I infer that most Dem voters so far have been conned into voting for the idea of Kerry, not the reality. And the idea is that he is more electable. And that has become almost self-fulfilling.

William Saletan crunches the poll numbers and pretty much confirms it: Democrats were duped into voting for Kerry not because they agreed with him on issues, but because they thought they could win.

John Kerry has won 12 of the 14 primaries and caucuses held so far. And why has Kerry won these contests? Not because voters agree with him on the issues. The reason, according to exit polls, is that voters think he's the candidate most likely to beat President Bush. There's just one problem: The same polls suggest this may not be true.

D'oh! And there are other problems that the Donks didn’t have time to consider (or suppressed). Matt Welch:

Other than all that, this Kerry avalanche strikes me as pretty bad news for the Democrats. Competition creates interest; interested attention on Democrats creates pressure on Bush, and Kerry is about as inspiring as a bag of kelp.

And here’s Terpsboy on Kerry’s unexamined record:

More to the point, there are so many examples like this, of Kerry’s manipulative inconsistencies, that the guy is DOA, but doesn’t know it yet.

A sentiment joined by Mickey Kaus:

This year, I'm constantly struck by the number of otherwise informed Democrats who are totally unaware of basic Kerry vulnerabilites--who are surprised, for example, to learn that he threw someone else's medals over a wall in his famous anti-Vietnam protest. ... When Clinton's early Gennifer Flowers troubles didn't stop him, he was inoculated on the womanizing issue for the remainder of the campaign. Kerry is so not inoculated. The antiseptic primary has left the Democrats not knowing whether their likely nominee has a healthy immune system or none at all.

Which brings us full circle: the shortened primary season forced the Democrats to pick a candidate quickly and, as a result, they’ve blindly grabbed at the first one who appears Presidential. If they had taken the time for a more reasoned analysis, the Donks might have chosen Edwards (who, according to Saletan, could have been a real contender):

How well has Kerry done among these voters [independents who decide elections]? In absolute terms, well enough. But in relative terms, the numbers show a disconcerting pattern. By and large, the closer you move to the center and center-right of the electorate, where the presidential race will probably be decided, the worse Kerry does. The opposite is true of Edwards.

We’ve already disposed of Dean and Clark: let’s move on to attacking Edwards. If the Democrats come to their senses in time, we’re ahead of the game with opposition research. If we’re wrong, we’re “stuck” with 50-cent gas tax, soft of defense, no-show Senator Kerry. “Bring it on”? You bet.