Why Must Iowa Decide Anything?

Sometimes I really hate the media. The New York Times runs this headline: What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?.

Maybe it is just the headline writer? Only in part:

In truth, amid all the endless permutations of outcomes that are being discussed — can Mrs. Clinton, the putative front-runner, survive a third-place finish, or Mr. Edwards a second-place one? — aides are beginning to grapple with the frustrating possibility that all the time, money and political skill invested here might prove to be for naught when it comes to identifying the candidate to beat in the primaries and winnowing the top tier.

In my twenty years of primary voting, I cannot recall any time my vote counted in a presidential primary. I thought the whole purpose of moving primaries forward on the calendar was for selecting candidates who appealed to more than Iowa and New Hampshire. The media gets to hype candidates to the rest of the country but who have no sense of the wider parts of America.

Yes, it gets me very annoyed. I put it down to the laziness of journalists - they want the easy job which means picking on the easiest subject to write about which is what everyone else is writing about and that is the leading candidate, the one getting the most campaign contributions. Would that they paid as much attention to the candidates as they do their finances, but that would mean reading and thinking about the candidates' ideas. Harder work that - much easier imitating goldfish at feeding time.

Right now I hope Iowa decides nothing. One state a winnowing does not make.