I've never seen Iowa or any caucus get such intense coverage as this year, and I watched the live broadcasts on C-SPAN of a caucus from each party. I realize we're still caught up in the horserace, and reporters are urgently making their way to New Hampshire rather than doing in depth reporting. Still, it seems a worthy story to compare caucuses and primaries. Primaries have secret ballots, and participation is broader, but caucuses are much deeper. I've voted in a primary state and attended caucuss in a caucus state, and I prefer the caucus. They ask morethan just voting, and I think that's good. Caucuses are for party building, at least for Democrats. I'm not sure why Republicans bother, but on the Democratic side, we elect local party officers, gather contact information for volunteers, and encourage participation in other party activities. How often do citizens get to engage in debates on public matters, and then participate in votes, yet that's what we do with resolutions. I'm not bothered about the secret ballot since we really elect delegates to the next convention, and in Minnesota, we vote for candidates for delegate, not candidates for office, even if that's a criteria for seeking votes. We have a party that is strong at the grassroots, and I think caucusing is part of why. Primaries by contrast ask no more than one more trip to the polls, with no committment to the party, maybe even with supporters of the other party crossing over to screw things up.

I have to disagree with Freeproton. "Accused" of being Muslim is the right word because that's how Limbaugh & CO. mean it when they call Obama a Muslim. Some of them would make it a crime. It's no different than other times, when conservatives have accused fellow Christians of being secretly Catholic or atheist. They know the charge of being Muslim scares their target audience, so expect it for as long as Obama is a public figure. They'd probably accuse him of being Jewish is that charge still worked as well as in the past. Hating Muslims is the current fashion among bigots. What we have to do is always add "so what if he was?" when he point out Obama isn't Muslim.

Though the Republicans may seem all over the map on science issues, there is a consistent thread through them all. They believe scientific evidence is just another opinion, no more valid than the opinion of a pundit or preacher. They believe you can trust your gut whether to believe something or not. Look at their opinions on scientific issues with the realization that they rely on what feels right, and they start to look consistent.

I remember Donna Brazile's useless spinmastering during the 2004 campaign after she screwed up the Gore campaign in 2000. Ever since, she occasionally pops up on TV to make sure Bob Shrum isn't the only campaign consultant hailed as an expert despite being consistently wrong. She reversed herself in a day, as if she understood it ever.

Nowhere have I heard this mentioned, though it seems obvious to me. Hillary led most of the way by high single digits or double digits, then Obama got a bump form Iowa. I'd expect a close win for Hillary, and that's what it was. Yes, there was a big move to Hillary after the big move to Obama, but the result is nearly a tie and Hilary's big win is being overplayed. Same with Obama's win in Iowa. If support for non-viable candidates was counted, I bet the results would look like New Hampshire, or if New Hampshire voters had to pick a second choice when there's didn't get enough support, I bet it would have looked like Iowa. We don't have any real momentum here, just a two-way tie for first, with a third place candidate hoping the top two implode. Of course, it seems unlikely either front runner will go on camera and say "Say hello to Macaca!"

crumley is mistaken about how Minnesota's national delegates are selected. The secret presidential ballot at the caucuses is strictly a straw poll. Attendees elect delegates to their county convention (often that's everyone in attendance who is will to be a delegate), and the county convention elects delegates to the state convention. State delegates from a given congressional district hold a district convention to pick some national delegates, and the rest are chosen at the state convention. Delegates have to run for election. Subcaucuses large enough to elect delegates hold a secret ballot to elect their delegate, but otherwise nothing is secret. Everyone knows which individual they're voting for.

Don't be alarmed, I'm not a Guiliani backer. He's right however about the Republicans not even bothering in a bunch of states. Long term, the Southeast and a few western states isn't enough. If they blow off the habitually blue states, they're doomed to minority status. That was fine while the Democrats blew off a bunch of states too, but we (meaning the Democratic grassroots) picked Howard Dean as DNC chair precisely because he realized this while the powers-that-were couldn't figure out why they kept losing while they took blue states for granted, ignored red states, and just competed in swing states. IMHO, Dean's 50 State Strategy is working. Bush is helping of course, but he just opened a door. The Dean/Wellstone wing of the party is walking through it. At some point, the GOP will figure out they have to do this too and start organizing in Minneapolis and Madison as well as rural Alabama. For now, I hope the GOP is still arrogant enough to assume its current travails are a fluke. So don't anyone tell them Guiliani is right.