The leader of the caucus appeared to be overwhelmed. She spoke very quietly and had a lot of difficulty keeping control of the situation. It was apparent who the regular caucus-goers were, as they all appeared to sit together, circling the wagons to protect themselves from this massive influx of strangers. We stayed for a while, and I even volunteered to be a delegate, but eventually left after the first of eleven resolutions passed after fifteen minutes of uncoordinated debate.

So, there I was sitting smugly in my own world, noting the incredible lack of leadership around me when I decided to get off my high horse and look for some. I was suprised at what I noticed. First of all, there was so much interest in this election that I couldn't help but label all of the caucus-goers as leaders, however isolated that leadership was. None of us had to go, but there was so much interest in having a say in matters that entire families waited in long lines, chaotic corridors and hot classroms to cast their vote. Additionally, the precinct organizers weren't professional speakers or organizers. They were regular people who were volunteering under extraordinary circumstances. Even the quiet leader who couldn't keep control didn't run away (as one classmate observed in their caucus). She and the rest of her group did what they could, and had to, under the circumstances.

Could it have been done better? Absolutely. The organizers should have known what to expect in this election, and should have set up a much better system than they did. But they did it, and hopefully learned from it. Is the chaos associated with the caucus evidence that we need a presidential primary instead? Probably. But again, look at the leadership of the individuals who insisted on having their voice heard. Even with the chaos they voted anyway.

There are many forms of leadership, both great and small. I think both are necessary and must happen simultaneously if any significant change is to occur.