The Iowa hype continues...

Considering some of the questions raised earlier about how the actual caucus takes place, as one example, you don't even have to be a legal resident of Iowa and can be registered to vote in another state and still caucus...the only reason why Iowa is such an issue is because they've made their state seem more important than it really is by being first. In 2004 only 125,000 people caucused according to this posting by Chris Cillizza.

Iowa is just the beginning not the end, and no matter who wins Iowa it really only means that candidate won in Iowa...Considering the system is set up so different than many other primaries in America and the questions as far as voter standards, letting what happens in Iowa become hype and not substance is something we should all stop contributing to.

I recommend reading "My vote means nothing" Part 1 and Part 2, it's clear many of us know the role the media plays in:

Why have the primaries become a tedious march toward the inevitable, rather than an exhilarating saga of democracy in action? And why do New Hampshire and Iowa continue to exert so much influence that the balance of the primary season feels like an afterthought?

The real responsibility in trying to maintain the reason the primary process was created lies with us...