The indefatigable Dick Morris thinks if Rudy and Hillary maintain their current leads in the polls through Labor Day, they will be unstoppable. He writes in The Hill:

The nominees for the 2008 presidential race will be selected in 2007. The tempo of the new political process, driven by 24-hour cable news, Internet bloggers, conservative talk radio, and liberal NPR is so rapid that the nomination race cannot exist in stasis waiting for Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina to get around to holding their votes in early 2008. Well before they open their caucuses or polling places, this nomination, in each party, will have been decided by the national media coverage during 2007.

In 2004, we saw the precursor of this expedited process when Howard Dean upset Kerry's early lead in the fall of 2003, propelled ahead by his Internet fundraising and antiwar positioning. Then, in December 2003, the establishment media unloaded on the former Vermont governor -- likely driven by disinformation passed around by other Democratic candidates -- and he was gone by Christmas. Kerry's victory in Iowa a few weeks later was no more than a projection on the Iowa screen of the results settled at the national level the previous month.

Read it all at the link above. Morris insists that

No clear front-runner, except for Rockefeller in 1964, has ever failed to win the nomination since the primary process became pivotal in party nominations in 1960.

Among Democrats, Kennedy in '60, Humphrey, once he entered the race, in '68, McGovern in '72, Carter in '76 and '80, Mondale in '84, Dukakis in '88, Clinton in '92, Gore in '00 and Kerry in '04 were front-runners who held their leads.

This is not correct, though. McGovern was NOT the frontrunner in 1972. Ed Muskie, the 1968 Veep nominee, was the heir apparent to the Democratic nomination. McGovern wasn't considered much of challenge to him until Muskie erupted in tears on the snowy streets of Manchester complaining about the Union-Leader's perceived mistreatment of his wife (which, if I remember, amounted to questioning her finances). After that, his campaign crumbled.

In the 1987-88 campaign cycle, the first "clear frontrunner" was Gary Hart, who likewise self-destructed over his affair with Donna Rice. After that, Dukakis finished third in Iowa, won NH, and inched further ahead of the pack after Super Tuesday. Only at that point did he become a "clear frontrunner." The lack of a "clear frontrunner" that year was obvious by the media designation of the Democratic field as "The Seven Dwarves."

Clinton may have been slightly favored early in the 1991-92 cycle, but the swirling questions about his background were quite real. His real coup was in declaring himself "The Comeback Kid" after finishing second in NH. And Kerry was no "clear frontrunner" in 2003, either. Perhaps first in a large field, but with little enthusiasm early. Dean clearly captured that title with his "Netroots" fundraising and, contrary to Morris' claim, wasn't brought down by Big Media but by his own Big Mouth.

Morris, therefore, grossly overgeneralizes the history, but his point does survive: IF a candidate establishes him/herself as the "clear frontrunner" this year, they will have strong odds in their favor. There are plenty of land mines along the way for both Guiliani and Clinton this year, though, as both have issues to overcome with their respective party bases.

Hat-tip to Daniel Freedman of It Shines For All for pointing to this story.