I haven't blogged much about the Iowa Democratic caucus because there just hasn't been much worth writing about - either the policies or the horserace.

On the policy I care about most - getting out of Iraq quickly and completely - only Kucinich and Richardson agree with me, and neither one has gotten any traction. (Richardson's flirtation with 10% was brief - and Kucinich isn't even registering in the polls, which led him today to urge his Iowa supporters to caucus for Obama.)

So the three contenders are still Clinton, Obama, and Edwards - just as they were one full year ago. The final polls are contradictory and any of them could win.

On policy questions, there is some difference in tone but little difference in policies. All three plan to keep a substantial number of troops in Iraq through the end of their first term. All three plan to continue the insane and unaffordable increases in defense spending. All three plan to keep murderous insurance companies in the business of health care. On the positive side, all three plan to address global warming, promote alternative energy, and restore the Constitution.

In terms of tonal differences, Clinton plans to work within the system, Obama hopes to transcend it, and Edwards is gearing up to battle the Corporations who control the system. Of course Edwards terrifies Corporations and their employees in the Corporate Media, so the media either ignores Edwards or lies about him.

What about the politics? I'm not the least bit interested in the he-said-she-said trivia which has dominated cable news (and unfortunately progressive blogs) for the past year. The question that interests me is simple: will Iowa Democrats end up choosing the Democratic nominee, or will Democratic voters in other states have a say?

The answer depends heavily on who wins Iowa. If Clinton wins, she is likely to become the nominee because she's so far ahead in the national polls.

If Obama or Edwards win Iowa, they will shake up the race. The impact will be felt immediately in New Hampshire, where Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat. If Obama wins Iowa, he's likely to get a big enough bounce to win New Hampshire as well. If Edwards wins Iowa, he might not get a big enough bounce.

Then it's on to Michigan on 1/15, which broke DNC rules and won't count; the Nevada on 1/19, where Clinton has a big lead that could disappear if she loses Iowa or New Hampshire.

So Iowa is important - it could either give Clinton a nearly-insurmountable lead, or create a two-way or even a three-way race.

I hope Iowa does not annoint Clinton, because as President she would produce the least amount of change of any of the three frontrunners. I want the battle to continue and I want the frontrunners to be forced to compete for progressive votes in large states like Florida, New York and California.

Of course there is no guarantee that a longer campaign will push the frontrunners in a more progressive direction. That probably depends on whether Edwards remains a contender, because he's been the only one willing to challenge corporate power.

So for now I'm rooting for Edwards to do well in Iowa and keep pushing the frontrunners to the left. I pretty much agree with Chris Bowers:

If Edwards wins, the narrative will be about progressivism and populism rising. If Obama wins, the narrative will be about partisanship and ideology declining. If Clinton wins, the narrative will probably be about political skill, or something. Whether or not these narratives are either fair or even accurate matters little right now, since there is precious little time to change them. As such, the apparent truth is that an Edwards victory in Iowa will result in much better press for progressives than either a Clinton or Obama victory. Also, beyond the Democratic nomination narrative, consider the rhetoric Clinton, Edwards and Obama would choose in the general elections. As TocqueDeville has pointed out, if Edwards were to become the nominee, we can expect nine months of populist, anti-corporate, anti-elites rhetoric. For my money, that is far preferable to hearing nine months of rhetoric about experience and getting things done, or nine months of rhetoric about the start of a post-partisan, post-ideological age.

Before you decide who to support, consider what it will be like to listen to each of the top three Democrats for the next ten months, or even the next five to nine years. That may seem shallow, but it is also immediate, important, and unavoidable.