Democrats, similarly, will likely retain Bennet on the ballot this November, and nothing that happens to today will probably affect that outcome too much. But that should not yet be taken for granted. Clearly, Bennet is the leading fundraiser against a stagnating Andrew Romanoff and enjoys the advantages that accompany incumbency. At the same time, Romanoff is positioning himself as the outsider looking in–a strange twist for the former House Speaker and erstwhile golden boy of Colorado Democratic politics–during a year that poses significant challenges for incumbents, namely the messy health care reform issue that has paralyzed Washington and polarized the nation.

Here’s Giroux on the Romanoff-Bennet caucus stakes:

Political analysts said Romanoff, who badly trails Bennet in fundraising, needs to perform very well at the caucuses to gain traction for the difficult undertaking of unseating a senator in a primary.

“My current assumption is that Romanoff needs to win [the caucuses] … to credibly make the argument that ‘I’m the grass-roots guy,’ ” said independent Colorado pollster Floyd Ciruli.

Eric Sondermann, an independent political analyst in Denver, described the caucuses as “a home game for Andrew Romanoff” because he’s concentrated heavily on securing the support of the sliver of Democrats who will participate in them. He expects Romanoff to do well.

“If he does not fare well [Tuesday] in the caucuses, it’s hard to understand what the ongoing rationale for his candidacy is,” Sondermann said.

Katy Atkinson, a Denver-based political consultant, said that the caucuses are far less important for Bennet than for Romanoff because “Bennet has the money to be able to run a primary campaign, and Romanoff needs the momentum that a convention win would give him to help him raise more money.”

Bennet’s campaign is targeting the caucuses to build the full-fledged statewide political organization he lacked after coming to the Senate as an unelected member with no experience in elective office.

So Romanoff is in must-do mode, and Bennet is simply looking to build the momentum and recognition he never needed to win his seat in the first place.  That makes tonight’s outing particularly tough on Romanoff, who, to be honest, has done little to kick up awareness of his candidacy outside a few inside politics circles.

For the sake of argument and variety, and without tendering an endorsement, I urge Democratic caucus goers to step up tonight for Andrew Romanoff, if only to force Michael Bennet to define himself yet more clearly. Bennet is responding well under threat of a primary challenge, with strong support of a public option for health insurance reform and with a slate of new rules introduced to reduce filibuster abuse, and that’s only good news for Colorado.

Additionally, Andrew Romanoff is an effective legislator and a likable politician. If he makes it through these early rounds of primary wrangling, I’m confident that he will bring to the discourse a number of key points and policy ideas that matter to the quality of state and national politics. It’s especially important now for Democrats to energize their politics once more on the validity of clear and constructive policy discussion. Let’s learn as much as we can and then vote on the best candidate.

And back home in Colorado, our elected officials are playing safe on the topic of health care reform, all except for Jared Polis, who, alongside a splinter faction of liberal Democrats, sees an opportunity to bring back the public option. Hey, at least he’s showing some spine.

Betsy Markey doesn’t answer to me, since I vote in Denver County, but she’s hunkered down with the Blue Dogs in an effort to smash apart the existing House health care bill and pass smaller, more “bipartisan” pieces. No surprise there, really, since Markey voted against the bill in the first place.

Diana DeGette, however, does answer to my vote, and I’m frankly stunned to read this in today’s Denver Post: “Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver said she’s willing to start negotiating the bill again from scratch if Republicans show a good-faith willingness to engage in the process.”

That’s a head scratcher, frankly. As the elder stateswoman of Colorado politics, DeGette ought to know better by now than to kowtow to the appearance of a bipartisanship that has left the building. Even to make statements that validate the notion of bipartisanship coming from obstructionist Republicans is to feed the false premise that Republicans want to solve any of these issues. They don’t, because it’s clearly in their better interests to let Dems wallow in the morass they’ve made for themselves out of all these elitist ideas about social change. In fact, the only thing that could make the GOP any happier right now is to do it all over again!

Ed Perlmutter is at least on track not to lose sight of what’s at stake, but as the Post points out, Big Insurance makes it impossible to just pass what we like from the bill a piece at a time:

Complicating that further, one of the most popular stand-alone elements — doing away with pre-existing-condition exclusions — is probably untenable to pass on its own. Insurance companies say they can cover pre-existing conditions only if the pool of healthy Americans buying insurance also expands significantly, as it would only do under the comprehensive bills.

Right. Well, so much for pushing through even popular legislation. Don’t worry, though. John Salazar is still working for health care reform for his constituents out there somewhere: “U.S. Rep. John Salazar of Manassa, the final Democrat in the delegation, declined to be interviewed for this story.”

As for our senators, the Post has Bennet in a pinch:

“I think it’s impossible to pick it right now,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., when quizzed on which of the ways forward now being discussed he preferred.

Uh, sure. Need we remind Senator Bennet that the Internet never forgets?  The freshman needs to show a little gumption and at least let us know how he plans to advance the health care reform agenda. He might as well come out fighting for it, because the president plans to campaign for Bennet and the right will hang the liberal Obama agenda around Bennet’s neck and watch him flounder.  So he might as well do something and earn progressive votes where he can.

Mark Udall has raised the clarion call on DADT repeal, asking not only for an inquiry but a roadmap to resolution–and soon–and he deserves praise for that. But Udall needs to step up as a leader on murkier issues that will matter to even more people. Colorado runs something like 18% uninsured, and in Denver it’s pushing 23%. With that many lives imperiled by the status quo, it’s not enough to answer a question with a question, even when couched in a beloved football metaphor.

Meanwhile, Democrats are getting reamed on the issue of a mandate, which they sort of deserve if they can’t come up with a viable nonprofit health insurance option to compete with big insurance. We need ideas and action, dammit, and legislators who aren’t afraid to do their jobs while they have them. And if Democratic lawmakers do play possum on real, important issues, they’re not just going to appear vulnerable to Republican challengers, they’re going to alienate progressives, the very voters who might keep them in office.

There are a couple things to keep track of here. First, domain names are cheap. We shouldn’t make too much of the NRSC spending $10.69/year, or less, per domain. There’s a strong case to be made that, based on available information about the primary field, an astute NRSC staffer decided to do a little proactive purchasing. The NRSC even suggests as much themselves (late in this article). If Norton isn’t the NRSC’s pick after a few months of campaigning, then it’s really not a big deal to forget about the domains and the twenty bucks (or sell the domains for considerably more money to the interested party). For what it’s worth, I think the NRSC should have skipped Go Daddy in favor of NameCheap. Registration would have come to just $9.69 a year, and there’d be no chance of anybody asking whether NRSC funds should support this. But I digress.

Next up, as Tomasic points out in his article, state Republicans, regardless of their early preferences, aren’t thrilled with the move.

Colorado Republicans, independents, and other engaged citizens don’t even know where all the candidates stand on the key issues yet — especially Jane Norton, the newcomer and great unknown. For example, I would be interested to hear where the former Department of Public Health director and recent McCain campaign state co-chair comes down on the critical health reform debate of our time.

If the NRSC really does plan to endorse Norton, then as Ben DeGrow points out they’ve put the cart before the horse. DeGrow sees the NRSC hand pushing Ken Buck out of the race and squeezing Tim Frazier, but that’s pretty speculative so far. The fractioning and frustration this leads to within the state party will be interesting to watch, though only a handful of political junkies will likely remember any of this a year from now. One important thing to track–and this is not unique to the Republican party–is how the national organization shapes the substance of the political and policy conversations within the state party. Voters might be more impressed to hear some substantive debate *before* the national committee makes a pick, but that appears increasingly less likely to happen. And as the Republican Party squelches intra-party debate even before policy positions can develop, look for more evidence that the party is running on empty.