It seems all we've heard for months is about how the republican presidential candidates are faring in Iowa. Today the Iowa caucus takes place and the show moves on to New Hampshire then South Carolina. But the question we asked four years ago remains: Is the Iowa caucus a microcosm of the American will or is it just a media circus? After all, Iowa only accounts for 1% of the presidential delegates. But because it is the first state to choose in the presidential race, and George McGovern surprised everyone by coming in second to Ed Muskie in '72 and Jimmy Carter in '76 emerged from out of no where to national prominence…the Iowa caucus has taken on a significance that is arguably undue. Are the voters of Iowa representative of the voters in states with high numbers of electoral votes such as Florida, California or New York? That's doubtful. Are they representative of lesser populated states like, well…Mississippi, Arkansas, or even Wyoming? That's hard to say. Iowa is just another state and the only reason they have ga-zillions of dollars pumped in every four years and gain unprecedented attention from the presidential candidates is because they are first to decide who they like. Often it looks like a popularity contest. It's my opinion that we should pay less attention to Iowa and what they think and more attention to what the candidates have to say to the nation as a whole. Nationwide, the voters are far from a consensus. I'm Jim Cameron…write and let us know what you think.