What is the point of the Democratic party, if each individual candidate is a platform unto themselves? We could use instant runoff voting in the general election to rank candidates by preference and not need a primary at all! (I support instant runoffs and proportional representation, but not to that degree). Don't get me wrong, I think ideas and policies are very important, but that is exactly why I want to make sure the Democratic platform has the best possible chance in the general election.
I personally prefer John Edwards' ideas. Some may prefer Kerry or Dean, and so on for the other six with their own grassroots supporters. Bottom line, it's the convention delegation (not just the winning nominee) who decides the 2004 party platform. Whoever is nominated will be advocating that platform, and rest assured. It will be very, very different than the platform that Bush will be running under, and the policies that Bush has pursued.
I do not think it is wrong to look at the primary in terms of selecting someone who can win, even among undecided voters who waffle on the issues. I would suggest that this is simply seeing the big picture and thinking ahead to the general election, something political parties with any sense have done for centuries. Stopping now, and not worrying about the general election in the primaries, is a recipe for failure and for even more conservative-packed courts. The ideas those right wing judges might have are the ideas I worry about most.