the Iowa caucus is economically efficient, if monstrously so. Insofar as its purpose is to kneecap the less well-heeled candidates and make it difficult to impossible for them to mount an effective challenge to the candidates representing the big money donors.

Except for Tom Harkin's presidential run in 1992 (Harkin was from Iowa, and of course lost the primary to Bill Clinton), the Iowa caucuses have acted as a gatekeeper for the parties by furthering national media affirmation of establishment candidates. This allows candidates who have met expectations substantial airtime for weeks, adding "momentum" into New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Conversely, candidates with low Iowa numbers are further marginalized by the media.

The impact of the 200,000 who caucus in Iowa is magnified because so many voters nationally receive their information from national network news programs more inclined to call the primary horse race than talk about real issues facing this country, like the massive entitlements, declining US relevance across the globe, and staggering debt the nation faces. Unlike those here, most voters are not getting information from Salon or the blogosphere at any time, but from some talking head behind a desk whose manager is often beholden to establishment interests to stay employed. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are allowing the voting in Iowa to dictate the early media tone of the race, a voting demographic made up of older, christian, rural, white voters.

The calculus of $425 per caucus attendee is the wrong one. Iowa is nothing less than a national media buy for the winner, won by the candidate who can scream ethanol subsidies and senior health care benefits the loudest. And yet, the media continues to speak as if this Iowa vote must have relevancy to voters elsewhere when it's their turn to make judgments on the issues.

I thought I just said that.

"...Kerry stopped talking to journalists for the remainder of the campaign, except during rare press conferences or interviews. And, for the life of me, I do not see how any voter benefits from presidential candidates becoming completely cloistered."

The voter benefits if the reporter reports what exactly is happening. The voters benefit if they learn that candidates only speak to reporters when they control the message, perhaps indicating that they are manipulative, scheming, people, instead of the honest, down home, folksy persona they try to portray.

Perhaps if reporters cared more about reporting than access, we'd have better political reporting.

Perhaps if reporters called the candidates bluff and walked away, we'd have better political reporting.

Perhaps all this not being obvious is what is wrong with political reporting today.

At this Iowa sized level that is a lot of money to spend. But at the national level what is spent on politics is less than what is spent on potato chips and should be a lot higher. Also limits on donations should be lifted; political spending is the ultimate in free speech "to learn where a man's heart is look to his purse." On the other hand there the difference between the parties is nill and unless you donate to a third party or at least a real liberal like Dennis or a true conservative like Ron its a waste of money.