1

The Iowa Caucus is about Iowans selecting delegates and platform planks.

That out-of-staters want to turn it into something else is their own business.

I guess it might help business a little. Provides for some entertainment in January on the frozen prairie.

2

Today's New York Post has an amusing and interesting Op-Ed by Peter Beinart (of The New Republic [well, at least it isn't Penthouse - I guess the Post gets to keep its conservative credentials]) about the caucus system and its relevance for different candidates.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/15880.htm

He points out that turnout averages barely 10% of registered voters due to the inconvenience of the caucus meetings, and that voting is not by secret ballot. He concludes that this favors candidates tied to interest groups that can mobilize voter blocs, and calls for centrist candidates to blow off the caucuses entirely (as McCain did, and Lieberman and Clark are doing now).

3

If you take Harkin out of the mix (as a native son, he was a shoo-in), '88 was the only failure.

Jimmy Carter gave us the modern Iowa focus, as he did the retail politics needed to do well, announcing early and living in Iowa, giving him a win move past better-known candidates.

4

Well, one more day and all the pundits will be somewhere else. I plan to attend my caucus, primarily to introduce a resolution, but I'll be "voting" too. Voting isn't a good description of what happens at a caucus, though. I suppose organizing into a preference group is similar to marking a ballot, but there's a significant amount of persuasion thrown in to the whole caucus process. More info is here (sponsored by the Iowa Democratic party): www.caucus2004.org.
Mike

5

Does the Iowa Caucus matter? I guess it depends on how you mean "matter." The result is Iowa isn't important in the grand scheme of things, but the process in Iowa does matter. It affects the terms of the debate, if nothing else.