The Times has an article on why the Democrats must choose Hillary Clinton for their nominee. Nothing like a few tentative victories to bring out the supporters, is there?

This is one of the problems I have with the US election. It has been so unpredictable that it practically cries out for the sort of mindless speculation and band-wagon jumping that the media excels at. Christ knows what journalists will do once this election is over. Think of all the column inches to fill...

Except, we know what they will fill them with. Because both the joy and the curse of the US election system is we know that there will be another Presidential election in 2012. And as soon as the media has to stop speculating about the 2008 election, they will move on to 2012. All the talk will be about another Romney bid. Or maybe Huckabee trying again. Or whoever eventually loses the Democratic contest trying again. And what it would have been like if the loser of the 2012 election had actually won. The speculation, and the counterfactuals won't stop. The dates will change; the content of the articles won't.

So a special prize for the first reader of this blog who flags an article about the 2012 Presidential Election to me. The cash value of the prize won't be more than 0.0001p, and I make no guarantee that I will even remember I even created this challenge. But it can't be too long before someone, somewhere, sees that first article about the 2012 election.

It is like seeing the first ever Christmas decoration in September, or the first Easter Egg in January. Exciting, depressing, and utterly premature - all at the same time.