Is there really any reason to be covering the 2012 campaign yet? We need a break.

[Armstead]

Can we at least have a stretch when the focus on the news is actually on the things that need to be done, instead of the ewarly jockeying for position among candidates and parties?

I don't mean ignore it -- just holding the floodgates of wall-to-wall election talk for a while.

One of the things that is wrong with the country is this state of a permanent campaign at the expense of coverage of what else is going on.

[polichick]

1. The permanent campaign is meant to distract - imo from the takeover by corps. nt

[Armstead]

3. Bread and Circuses and Permenent Campaigns

[patrice]

2. Electoral success should always be a goal, but not the only goal & though not always

the primary goal, a goal, PART of what we always strive for, nonetheless.

[lunatica]

4. It is exhausting isn't it?

It's like a food fight in a high school cafeteria only it goes on 24/7/12/364

[karynnj]

5. Would you have a agreed to that in March 2003?

It was only a few months later when the pre-primaries started for 2004 - in spite of mid March 2003 being the start of Bush's war in Iraq. For 2008, the campaign started earlier in both parties. By March 2007, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd and Kucinich were all announced candidates by this time.