catching up

So I'm eating breakfast this morning before coming in to work (a story deserving a post of it's own), and I'm looking through Thursday's paper (I hadn't gone outside yet to get todays, and Friday's was in my truck). I usually look at the front page to see what new stupidity the governor or the Decatur city council have come up with, before heading to the editorial page to see if any of my fellow citizens have put pen to paper to prove that they too could be governor - or at least on the Decatur city council (although to be fair, most letters to the editor seem to be well intentioned and thought out - only a few come from the outer fringes of reason). Then to take the edge off, I look through the comics page and the obit's.

Like I said, I'm reading Thursday's paper, and there is an editorial from some Washington Post guy warning us before the fact that the Iowa Caucases weren't a true reflection of what's going on in the country. The democrats the vote are more organized - union, blue collar, teachers -- the republicans more fundamentalist and religious. Not at all like us normal Americans. But here's the thing, if there are any groups in this country that are more pandered to, then quickly forgotten about than these groups, I'd like to know who they are. The author of the editorial says the democrats that vote in the caucus are more liberal than most, and the republicans more fundamentalist, and that the New Hampshire primary is a more accurate telling. Yeah, you're average New Hampshire voter is probably more liberal than the most extreme Iowan around.

I heard in the news this morning that polls have Obama and Hillary running neck and neck, maybe Iowans know something the Washington post doesn't...