So in case you don't have primaries wherever that is, the primary gives the other elements of the party to put pressure on a candidate to change stances (or indeed simply to articulate ANY stance) on various issues. Even if Hillary has a lock on the candidacy, the primary process allows reporters to ask her to elucidate upon her positions, and the debates with other potential candidates require her to agree with or differentiate herself with stances different from those taken by the other candidates. This hopefully gives the other parts of the party more ability to pressure her once elected to at least represent them in some small way once elected. It's still really hit or miss, as some candidates have the chutzpah to use the rhetoric of one part of the party while campaigning, then turn around and govern completely differently.

Whe had onz for 2012 presidency ivolving sicialist party and the radical left. Where i did voted fir a woman whi was Ségolene Royal. Unfortunely she lost. I voted for her in order to give her her second chance for this time beating the awful Sarkozy in second round. But for presidency first round I least to my first side by voting for the Green Party candidate and former prosecutor Eva Joky. Then at the second round I voted for Hollande as my final goal wzs to give Sarkozy the exit direction of Élysée palace. Our system is way différent but we do organize more and more primaries.

But it seems everything is due to her...

It's media coverage. We can't control (nor should we) what the media chooses to cover.

even two years prior to primary season. Everything is done to lay down the red carpet to her.

Like what?

... Is there really no other so meritant females dems candidate.

Yes, but they have to run. No one can MAKE them run.

Look. She write her book in the middle of midterms wich distracts everyone.

Candidates typically write books before elections. Elizabeth Warren's book has been out about 8 weeks. President Obama's The Audacity of Hope was released 3 weeks before the 2006 midterms. This isn't anything new.

Seems all the Dem powersructire along with pundits and MSM are lovingly kissing her feets and reverencing.

Of all the presumptive candidates, she's the front-runner. I don't see anyone kissing her feet. Can you give an example?

How could we know for certenty she is the most accurate one to defeat GOP in 2016?

That's what primaries are for.

I have the sad feeling she is a sort of democratic and political Queen who has due to HER Name a kind of divine right to be the nominee

If she runs, they all start at the starting gate.

Then look at past canditatzs. Which othee Dems one who lost primary and/or Général election had hever won the nomination again? The only one who made it was......the GOP NUT NIXON.

What does this have to do with anything? Is it your feeling that once a candidate loses the nomination fight or the general election, they should be barred from ever running again?

But I have never seem loosing Dems in the past had been given that chance again.
Even saw the contrary.

Joe Biden - Biden ran for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination and lost. He ran for the 2008 nomination and lost.

Jerry Brown - Brown ran for the Democratic nomination in 1976, 1980 and 1992. Lost each time.

Al Gore - Gore ran for the Democratic nomination in 1988 and 1992. He lost both times. He ran again in 2000 and won (including the presidency)

More?

Didnt knew Al Gore ran befire as well as Biden. I never heard of Jerry Brown.

Of course that Gore won. He was stolen.

The James Carvilles, the Lanny Davises (feh) and other creatures similar. The news is picked up and the ball gets rolling in the direction these professional manipulators want.

There will be a robust primary, like in '08, with a variety of personalities. I don't believe for a minute this nonsense that it's hers if she wants it. That's repulsive. But that is what Carville and the likes of stinky little shit Honduras coup accomplice Davis get paid for - say it often enough and people believe it.

His wife working at the WH in Niv.2004. And who called her when he learned that Kerrt wasnt at the beginning willingly to concede Ohio?
If its true I wonder why this surrogate wasnt banned from political advising wirld znd even courted for leaks.

Would anybody say anything bad about her? Seems all Dems would be afraid of damaging her before the general election, since it's all but a given she is going to get the money, support, etc.

There is no nominee yet for the Democratic or Republican party.

Mistakes she made in her recent media appearances are very odd for a person who has been in politics for as long as she has. I wonder if there is a belief that a candidate who wants to challenge her will be all the better groomed if they think she is the competition? Martin O'Malley chaired her campaign in Maryland and is laying groundwork for a presidential run. It's hard for me to believe that they would run against each other.
He's laying low right now, but has said he is laying groundwork. I wonder if there is something going on? Imagine if Hillary were to say "I'm not going to run because there is a superior candidate"? Would her perceived inevitability have a positive effect on that candidate?

I don't buy the certainty that she's going to run. There are a lot of questions and possibilities.

Almost anyone who is far and away the favorite to win the next election will run. And of course she thinks she is the best candidate.

Primaries are the crucible through whihc our nominees are chosen.

Hillary nearly survived the crucible in 2008, but Barack Obama nudged her out of contention, barely.

It is still possible that somebody could repeat that.

and coast to the convention..