I'm not convinced that independent, individual interests that coincide for temporary periods to pass a law, repeal a law, or pass an initiative/referendum, constitute "party." They constitute individual collections of common interest for specific tasks.

The partisan system constitutes collections of individuals with common interests who throw themselves into a permanent sub-government not for specific tasks before them, but to dominate the nation with an ideologic platform. See the difference from my perspective?

Partisans join parties and then reinforce these perpetual organizations around opposition to others who do the same. As gridlock grows around this infected appendix in the polis, the system departs more and more from the US Constitution (w/heavy emphasis on the Bill of Rights). This is so because each party does not want the other party's agendas to enjoy the use of constitutional law or rights to dominate the ideologic and power-trip course over the nation.

Why do individuals fall into this? They do this in response to the ads and persuasions of monied interests who employ them and others and who they assume must be more knowledgeable about the issues of the day simply because those with money have more time to study them and politick about them while the individuals are busy working too hard and hearing too many monied voices to conclude what is what. And they are busy doing that to make the special interests money with which to send them the messages about what to vote for and why. "Talking Points" or something like that...(o;

One thing the winning candidates will say as they emerge later in the process is that they look forward to "working with" or "together" with their opponents on beating the other party, and if that happens, "solving the problems of this great nation" with those opponents.

Just weeks before this mysterious phenomenon of magnanimity manifests  itself, their opponents were too inexperienced or too 'old politics' to be in a parallel position with them working on the problems together as if partners.

Whoever makes it to the White House is going to need all the help they can get. That's why it was a good sign to see some conciliatory speech from most sides last night after the NH results were in.

I heard a paraphrase of what Ross Perot said sixteen years ago when Obama spoke. He said that the solutions to the problems the country faces economically and internationally are known. What is lacking is the will to unite and act on them. "United We Stand" was his chant. And Obama's is "Yes We Can." Nifty.

The problem solvers have become the problem. It is why I yell about partisanship. Partisanship is the dogmatizing of disagreement. Disagreement among countrymen and countrywomen is part of the robust process we cherish. But partisanship as dogma is merely self-destructive.

That's why Obama speaks to so many independents and fed-up party members across the country. He started with this theme and continues with it. It's been popular for over 15 years, and he's reviving it while bringing a new face and generational awareness to the task.

Not one of us on the outside knows what we're actually going to get with these candidates if tested in office. Frequently, the good intentions, or their appearance, in the campaign, drift away while the juggernaut of the status quo slowly locks out as much change as possible.

You might argue that the Neocons concluded that since change is impossible legally, they would have to "go off the reservation." It is a dubious conclusion, yet there it is. Can the leaders in place achieve change without illegal or extra legal conduct by administrations? To do it will require much sacrifice of the partisan dogmas and expectations that have brought us here.