Thanks idio, for the bit of history. I told Izzy that you thought the Paultron might pull ahead of the GOP Deceptacons in Iowa, and she almost urped. Judging by the Paulbots on our streetcorners this weekend for no good reason, their insanity might be overcome by their sheer numbers and organization.
Thanks for being our on-the-snowy-frozen-ground reporter, idio.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 1, 2008 06:22 AMI cannot believe we are still going thru this idiotic ritual. I almost don't blame Giuliani with his so what attitude toward Iowa.
Pouring everything into a state whose importance was always overstated and whose significance has long since passed is as nutty as it gets.
Every candidate should be telling themselves "if I lose Iowa and New hampshire WHO CARES!!"
Posted by Daryl at January 1, 2008 08:05 AMWhat Iowans have to offer to the process is that they tend to be more informed than the average citizen, and are more involved in the process, I suspect, than the average voter. They EXPECT to be able to meet with the candidates, to get answers to their questions, and expect to be taken seriously, respectfully. Is that bad? (I suppose if you're Hillary lover, and she's losing, it's bad.) I'm not sure what gatekeeping has to do with Iowa voters. These are fiercely independent people, and they make up their own minds, for the most part, are less likely to be influenced by TPTB.
What I HAVE noticed is that there are four large groups of voters here: farmers, teachers, union members, and veterans, and each have their own special issues. Sure, they do get together and discuss the issues, teachers with teachers, farmers with farmers, etc., and may come to somewhat of a concensus, but it's more of a bottom->up process, than a top->down one.
I'm not surprised to see Obama surging, kind of had a feeling that was happening. I'd give the teachers, who are especially involved in the caucus process, the credit for the surge. Just my guess on that.
But it always amuses me to see all the hotshots try to demean Iowa's role as if Iowa is too insignificant to steal such an important role from states that are more important. You know the hotshots I'm talking about--the REAL gatekeepers.
Posted by Julie at January 1, 2008 09:26 AMIowans are no more or less informed than people from any other state. It's just that they are so used to being first, that they tend to overvalue their importance.
Posted by Daryl at January 1, 2008 10:05 AMLet me put it this way: This issue of continuing Iowa caucuses is about the dynamics of power. Those with the money and the power in this country can't stand the fact that the caucus process of an insignificant state like Iowa has the power to force their chosen brokers to bend down and listen and answer to Iowa's housewives and factory workers and farmers and teachers. I just googled for average personal income here in Iowa, took the first hit I found, which was for 2001:
".....$27,225 which ranked 34th in the United States (including the District of Columbia)..."
Can you imagine the GALL of people making only $27,000 demanding answers from important people like Her Highness Hillary? No wonder Ghouliani refused to do it, and Her Highness had to think twice about whether she wanted to jump into it. It's very demeaning and a hell of a lot of work. Besides which, it tends to expose a candidate's weaknesses.
Stop and think what would happen if there were a national primary day. No more community meetings by candidates in small towns with poor housewives and factory workers. Interviews by Timmy Russert would replace the questions of meat packer employees to the Obamas and the Clintons and the Romneys. Suddenly money would be king (or queen), as advertizing would take the place of those community meetings.
Sorry, I think the Iowa caucuses serve a purpose.
Posted by Julie at January 1, 2008 10:25 AM