Just now on Fox News Shephard Smith said that the Iowa caucii were important because, and I quote "Since 1972, the following Presidents all won the Iowa caususses, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush"
That wrong, but what did you expect from Fox? Facts?
Reagan lost Iowa in 1980 to George Herbert Walker Bush.
Clinton lost Iowa in 1992 to Tom Harkin.
In other words, since 1972, Carter and George W. Bush won Iowa, and then won the Presidency.
Actually, Fox can claim to be accurate because, as sitting Presidents, Reagan and Clinton won their parties endorsement in virtually uncontested races. But that's obviously deceptive, and that's obviously their goal, to deceive.
Fox has to stop the Dean campaign now, so they are saying a Dean loss in Iowa (which may well happen, considering the current closeness and the media barrage) is significant, when in fact only two one-term Presidents ever won the Iowa caucii (correct plural of cuacus, genii).
UPDATE! I WAS FOOLED!
In part, it's just the press itself being greedy! If the nomination is wrapped up quickly, it means bad ratings.