GOP front runners seem to be bailing on the September 17 YouTube/CNN debate. Democrats should rejoice at this news. Here's why.

On this day in the parallel universe of the 2003-2004 cycle, we were all watching history being made. The politics of money in presidential primaries was being turned on its head forever by a daring gamble by Joe Trippi. Or so we thought at the time. None of the 2008 campaigns on either side have attempted to repeat the Dean 2003 miracle. As a result, no second tier candidate will break into the first tier this week, and Big Money will dominate just as it did in the first quarter of this year.

If you're hiring for a campaign, or any campaigning organization, please check out the incoming class of the New Organizing Institute's 2nd annual week-long intensive campaign training.

Why is the "Vote Different" creator still in hiding? There can only be one reason: the project was funded by a well known Obama supporter, or someone with very close and public connections to the Obama campaign. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that the Obama campaign had anything to do with it.

But so far most of the discussion of the ad has put up a picture of an independent video person working at home on their Mac in their spare time. But that's just not plausible. Such a character would be claiming his or her reward right now, boosting his or her career and having a great time doing the media rounds. And, also telling: the ad maker knew exactly what election law lines not to cross, stopping just short of express advocacy. Why didn't the ad say, "Vote Obama"? So, when did independent YouTube video hackers get access to their own election law attorneys?

I guess it's because he's not running for president that Bill Frist is now free to communicate like a normal human being. Presidential candidates should take a lesson.

Housing bubble!
Stock bubble!
Tech bubble!
Oh My!

How would a world economic collapse affect the '08 race?

Hard to say, since none of the candidates--or any of their minions--either D or R can even conceive of the possibility right now.

Dear candidates and campaign managers:

Why is it, after grassroots donors gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Dem presidential candidates in the 2004 cycle, that you are now completely ignoring them in this cycle? I'm not saying you shouldn't be courting large donors. But instead of spending ALL your time between high-dollar fundraisers and donor "call time," why not just spend at least 15 or 20 minutes per day doing things to win the hearts of the mass base of Democratic donors and activists?

Everyone knows the story about the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate. Nixon showed up at the debate pale, with a terrible 5:00 shadow, and his shirt didn't fit. He refused to wear makeup to improve his appearance on TV, fearing embarrassment in the press. Even though his performance was comparable to Kennedy's, he lost the debate in the voter's minds because he just looked awful.

Today, of course, all candidates and campaign managers know they must understand television, and media consultants sit within the inner-most circle informing and overseeing every single decision--even down to what shirt to wear for debate night.

For the Internet in politics, it's 1960 again. And I can't tell you how painful it is, as someone who knows the power of this medium, to watch a candidate with as much potential as Obama just blowing it--just like Nixon did with TV in his first run.