This is for all of those who are not Huckaboomers:

It's 1992 and another winter in Iowa means another presidential caucus. They came from around the state to their caucus sites to pick who they would hope to be the next president. Iowan's knew that as Iowa goes, so goes the nation, or so it was said. Republicans didn't caucus that year since our president, George H.W. Bush was running unapposed, so all of Iowa's Democrats gathered to select the man who would bear the standard for their party.

We all remember that the eventual winner went on to win the nomination and hence the presidency. No, wait a minute, he didn't win either one. Tom Harkin won that caucus handily, giving him a leg up going into the New Hampshire primary. Eventual nominee and presidential winner, Bill Clinton finished fourth with only 2.8% of the caucus vote.

What is the lesson to be learned from this? Iowa does not necessarily dictate who either party's nominee will be. Sure, some of the eventual nominees did win the caucus, but for example, Ronald Reagan didn't, twice in fact. In 1976 he lost out to incumbent Gerald Ford, and in 1980 was beaten by George H.W. Bush. There was, again, no Republican caucus in 1984, since Reagan who finished second place in Iowa in '80 was running unapposed for re-election.

On the Democrat side, there have also been winners that went on to nowhere. In 1972 Ed Muskie finished first over George McGovern's third place finish; Dick Gephardt won in 1988 over third place finisher Mike Dukakis; and as mentioned above, in 1992....well we all know how that went.

Iowa is a great state, but somehow the importance of their caucus has gotten out of hand. Same can be said of New Hampshire's primary. I can remember when Gene McCarthy upset seated president Lyndon Johnson in New Hampshire, causing his withdrawl from the race for re-election, but McCarthy didn't win the nomination over Hubert Humphrey that year (1968). Pat Buchanan beat Bob Dole in New Hampshire in 1996, but again, didn't win the Republican nomination.

The law of probabilities favors the Iowa winner winning the nomination, but probable is not always possible. If an obscure ex-governor from an obscure south-western state, who finished fourth with 2.8% of Iowa's caucus vote can go on to become president, anyone can be president in this great country, even one who finishes with only ten percent in Iowa. Oh, and by the way, an obscure ex governor from an obscure south western state is in this one again, but this time he was the winner in Iowa. What does this mean. Who knows?