Like most critiques of the primary system, this is a mix of valid points (the impenetrable delegate formula, too much control by Party insiders) and just plain envy. It makes sense to concentrate early efforts in small areas in the same way that Broadway shows do out-of-town tryouts before knowledgeable audiences. In this case, most of the noise comes from boosters in other states whining "Why them and not us?" That's not reform, it's little kid jealousy.

I've lived in eight states in the U.S. and travelled in the rest, and never seen a place with the political involvement, sophistication and attention to the issues of "small-town" Iowa. The demographics may not be perfect, but they aren't in any state. Can't speak for New Hampshire (I always preferred Vermont) but Iowa lacks the all-controlling political machines and super-loaded media of many of the states yelling they should replace it. All it has is a relatively small space filled with people willing to ask uncomfortable questions on the kinds of issues that don't make national TV, and listen to the answers.

The results are obvious: In Iowa, the counted-out-nationally John Edwards is running neck and neck with the "faltering" Obama and the nationally anointed Clinton, while longshots like Richardson, Dodd and Biden attract responsive audiences in the hundreds and their own core of supporters.

Strangely, too many liberals from other states seem willing to accept George Will's slur of Iowa's "insularity" without examining it. Iowa has Chicago architecture and a heritage of Wisconsin/Minnesota populism. Its cultural/political gods are George Washington Carver and Henry Wallace, who once did literally walk hand in hand in central Iowa. While other states waste their energy on trivialities, Iowans work with the stuff of the country. And it's not just "activists" as the Florida guy says (referring to New Hampshire -- and we already know what would happen if Florida chose the President); it's everyone.

Give it an analogy Midwesterners can understand: Indiana has basketball, Ohio (and Michigan) have football.

Iowa has politics.

Always wondered how the L got in there. What do gay men and lesbians, or any of these other groups, have in common, apart from a shared exceptionalism and a status as societal outsiders? Have to admire the galloping PCism, though, that turned the gay movement into GL, GLBT and finally LGBTTTIQQA. I think that last one pretty much includes everybody, rounding the circle.

Obviously the only solution is to make it legal, so that there are no societal outsiders, everyone is free to be who and what they want and exceptionalism and alphabet soup become pointless and unnecessary. In that sense, Aravosis is wrong, on the same order as those who said "We must have full rights for those of color, but only the light-skinned ones who know how to act European," a position embraced by the NAACP for far too long.

Equal status for everyone is unquestionably a concept to be desired; it'll be years, though, before it's extended to the most discriminated against member of the liberal community, the heterosexual male.

Leave it to the gay community to come up with a dandy poison pill issue right before an election.

You must have been living in a cocoon not to notice that Clinton has been anointed the inevitable candidate by the national press due to her substantial lead in the polls -- everywhere, that is, but Iowa. Is it a coincidence that the one place where the top three contenders are statistically even is the state where they've spent the most time?

Most national media is owned by Republicans, but that doesn't they're solely responsible for anti-Clinton feelings. Talked to any Democrats lately? Outside the bounds of her Northeast bounce, she's met with considerably more skepticisim. The uneven record of the Clinton administration and her status as the candidate of the DLC, which lost us three of the last four elections, have intelligent voters asking her harder questions than she's prepared to answer. See today's story on her snapping when a guy from Hampton, Iowa asked her about her vote on Bush's bill authorizing the invasion of Iran. Instead of anwering, she shouted "Who gave you that question?" Nobody -- just a guy from Iowa.

As for Clinton critics being drunks and heroin users, there are more than a few Kool-Aid sippers scattered around the country, too.

"... the nearly Aspergerian pop-cultural patter that passes for dialogue in film snob hero/ex-video store clerk Quentin Tarantino's films. "

What makes you think he's not? It would certainly explain a lot.

a funny, discriminating article, about a series that parodies all the Idiot's and Dummy's guides to everything in the world (my favorite: The Idiot's Guide To Pregnancy) and brings back memories of the better old days of Salon when it had some intelligence in its cultural writing. More, please.

You can tell it's good because it's bringing out the rightwing snarkhounds. We've already had Tomreedtoon telling us that the only good cheese comes wrapped in plastic slices (everyone knows its the only real American cheese!) even managing to drag in Barbra Streisand. Now we need Realname coming out for Red Lobster and ~guy on the merits of his Uncle Dick's greasy spoon, which features only dishes made from things in cans.

"...pre-packaged, convenience toxic waste soybean by-product drek."

Now we're talking tofu!

I always though he was Irish. Richardson. He's not? Are you sure?

Hope he has his immigration papers with him. I'll bet Steve King will have something to say about this.

Doesn't matter. I'm voting for Tom Tancredo anyway. He's the only one with guts enough to know what matters to a real Iowan. I'm hoping Steve will be his vice. God made them to be together.

Eric :)

Coon Rapids, Iowa