Legal Commentary

As we await primary election results today, I am wondering about the conventional wisdom that it is good for a party to settle on its Presidential nominee sooner rather than later.  This CV largely prompted the quick embrace of John Kerry in early 2004, and that did not work out so well for the Democrats.  However, it seems that the same CV is dominating a lot of the 2008 campaign thinking.

Nearly all Republicans ? save for Governor Huckabee ? apparently decided they should quickly put all their eggs in the McCain basket once it was clear other major candidates were not energizing the party.   Similarly, we have heard lots of assertions that it would be bad for the Democrats to continue their campaign deep into the Spring;  I sense many are hoping for one candidate to deliver a knock-out blow in today's voting. 

But could a continuing primary campaign (at least through Pennsylvania) be good for the Democrats for various reasons?  After all, throughout February, each Democratic candidate has raised a lot more money than Senator McCain, and both candidates have energized old and new voters in states that often do not get too much attention.   In addition, a continued primary battle would enable the Democrats to continue to dominate the airwaves, to hone their messages and their political teams, to build ground teams and cultivate local candidates, and to perhaps create the impression that whomever wins the nomination is likely to be the next President. 

Thoughts?