In fact, this 2012 race may be the most meaningless national election campaign we've ever had. If the presidential race normally captivates the public as a dramatic and angry ideological battle pitting one impassioned half of society against the other, this year's race feels like something else entirely.

In the wake of the Tea Party, the Occupy movement, and a dozen or more episodes of real rebellion on the streets, in the legislatures of cities and towns, and in state and federal courthouses, this presidential race now feels like a banal bureaucratic sideshow to the real event - the real event being a looming confrontation between huge masses of disaffected citizens on both sides of the aisle, and a corrupt and increasingly ideologically bankrupt political establishment, represented in large part by the two parties dominating this race.

There follows a highlight of the recent decision in Montana that reinstated that state's ban on direct spending on campaigns by corporations - did anyone actually hear the media mention this amidst their breathless coverage of the playground-battle-in-the-sandbox that is the Iowa caucuses? - and setting up the inevitable Supreme Court challenge to Citizens United, and goes on to discuss the role that big corporate money plays in the election process.

Taibbi goes on:

The reason 2012 feels so empty now is that voters on both sides of the aisle are not just tired of this state of affairs, they are disgusted by it. They want a chance to choose their own leaders and they want full control over policy, not just a partial say. There are a few challenges to this state of affairs within the electoral process - as much as I disagree with Paul about many things, I do think his campaign is a real outlet for these complaints - but everyone knows that in the end, once the primaries are finished, we're going to be left with one 1%-approved stooge taking on another.

Most likely, it'll be Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama, meaning the voters' choices in the midst of a massive global economic crisis brought on in large part by corruption in the financial services industry will be a private equity parasite who has been a lifelong champion of the Gordon Gekko Greed-is-Good ethos (Romney), versus a paper progressive who in 2008 took, by himself, more money from Wall Street than any two previous presidential candidates, and in the four years since has showered Wall Street with bailouts while failing to push even one successful corruption prosecution (Obama).

There are obvious, even significant differences between Obama and someone like Mitt Romney, particularly on social issues, but no matter how Obama markets himself this time around, a choice between these two will not in any way represent a choice between "change" and the status quo. This is a choice between two different versions of the status quo, and everyone knows it.

The good:  Fresh faces, seeing Al Gore talk at length about politics.  Jennifer Granholm making some astute observations at times contra her boss Al Gore.  Ben Mankiewicz and the bearded guy sitting next to him who had some witty remarks and the guy next to him who was consistly humorous.  The smart black prof from Brown University who is an improvement over the black prof from Tulane on Msnbc (Melissa Something-Something), the Obama cheerleader.

"We are not going to go out and run nasty ads," said Mr Gingrich, who finished fourth.

"But I do reserve the right to tell the truth. And if the truth seems negative that may be more of a comment on his record than it is about politics."