Barack Obama will save our country…
He is without a doubt the only electable candidate from either side

One day we'll live in a country with a real democratic election …

Bravo Lynne from Iowa! Well said and right on point.

Yes.

(and with a caucus system, no less, where people who work during the evening and/or single parents, etc. are immediately dissinfranchised by not even being able to attend the caucus — let alone the collusion and intimidation that can take place…).

If you want to know the truth about Obama take a look at FactCheck.org!

He's a BAD CHOICE to lead this country.

Check it out if you want to be an informed voter.

Lay off Iowa, would you!? I can't stand all this stupid bickering about Iowa having too much power. Think of it this way. It gives us all a chance to hear the candidates before all the hoopla. It allows for a great deal of the lies and rumors to be sorted through before the big states have to vote. It also creates a more level and better advised playing field. Don't you want to know the candidates a little better before you vote?

As an Iowan who will caucus tonight for Richardson (the most qualified Democrat), I believe the Iowa caucuses should remain first. While we may not be the most diverse state (not our fault - anyone can move here, you are welcome), we are an intelligent, educated group of people. Anyone I know going to caucus tonight has researched the candidates and has attended functions with the candidates to get a feel for their character and their platforms. I believe Iowans are level-headed and truly want to select candidates who would best serve this country. Whether Iowa remains first after this election or not, I would have serious concerns if a state like California, New York, Florida, or Texas went first as they do not represent me and my ideals either. It has to start somewhere and you'll never make everyone happy. Believe me, we are doing all of you a favor - taking the brunt of the relentless political telephone calls, doorbell ringing, and TV ads.

David, Los Angeles,

Not true. You only see what you want to see and has this "The green is greener on the other side of the fence" mentality. If primaries are all held on the same day, then it is all about air campaign, no ground warefare. A wealthy candidate can easily crush all his opponents. When the first state is a small state, then money is not everything. It is about knocking doors, shaking hands, house parties, townhall meetings. It is about the very pure old fashion politics: personal interaction and conversation. It is great that Iowa has the first causus and it is great that New Hampshire is the first primary state. They are both small, allowing an under-funded candidate to have a chance to compete directly against a well-funded candidate. Do you know Romney out-spent Huckabee in Iowa 20:1 and yet Huckabee is actually slightly ahead of Romney in Iowa as of this moment? John McCain does not even a a single TV ads in Iowa and he may come in third. Now, I have no idea who will actually win Iowa, but if a candidate can out-spent his opponent 20 to 1 in a national primary, where all primaries are held on the same day, then Romeny would have crushed Huckabee — simply by TV ads. Hey, if you are into TV ads, then yes, a national simulataeous primary is good. But if you are into townmeeting, Questions&Answer sessions, then small state causcus and primaries is the way to go.

This is exactly the reason why in the general election, candidates launch more TV ads, and more fund raising (to maintain TV ads), and less townhall meetings and less house visit.

I think they should move the Iowa cuacus to San Diego. Hispanics are being discriminated against everywhere in this country And i am sick and tired of it. When the ACLU and the national council of La Raza have their way we will reclaim the land that is actually ours.

Only the news organizations and Online sites give this Stupid example of a completley fake and objective election process….Why are these people shoving it down each others throats that this iowa event is going to decide that next president…People should be upset that the news media and the govnt and the politicans are calling them stupid and saying they will toe the line…Dosnt nebraska matter? Idaho, montant,new mexico or any other state? Dont those people get a say in whos elected? This is a shame, this country means nothing if people buy into things like this and the media is so out of touch they still think the rest of the nation cares, they only care when it being shoved down their throat and any remotley convenient news outlet is speading propaganda

To Jim, from Columbus, OH: On a per voter basis, the votes of voters in states with small populations count for more than those with large populations. That is why we will probably never be rid of the Electoral College—the small population states would never go for it.

Hey Vic from Las Vegas and others who think Hillary has "experience and ability"? Hogwash! She lived in the White House. Big whoop. I can stand in a garage and it doesn't make me a car.

Idiots Out Wondering Around (IOWA). From what I've read on these blogs sounds like IOWA represents about 90% of America.

I'm a 35 year resident of NH and I also work part time for the major polling organization here, so I have a pretty keen bead on the election. Why NH? Why not? As a small state, all of the candidates can traverse the whole of NH and meet one on one with residents, often multiple times, in meaningful ways that foster dialogue and which inform voters in a way that allow them to make thoughtful decisions about their vote. And I can tell you that NH residents put a lot of time and effort into their decision. We are proud of our first in the nation status and we take it seriously. Can every state say the same about their voting?

Do we have huge cities with diverse populations that are overrun with poverty? Not on a large scale, but that doesn't mean that the issues that come with those situations are not important to us. We are neither a wealthy state nor a poor one, so that eliminates a lot of the knee jerk votes that are cast solely on those bases.

What we offer are large numbers of independent voters who make the candidates work hard for their support–in sub zero weather, no less. How can that be a bad thing that the rest of the country doesn't benefit from?

The candidates have been stumping for over a year. We have thoroughly vetted them. (And in this age of 24/7 multimedia, you can see it all for yourself, if you want to put the effort in.) If anyone thinks that there is some candidate who is lurking somewhere out there that hasn't been given a fair shake here, then you are just not paying attention.

In answer to the question, yes unequivocally.
Primaries in all the states should be held on the same day, just like the elections. Otherwise it is too easy for the party leaders to manipulate who eventually becomes the parties’ candidate.

it Don,t matter who we elect. for pres. it won,t make any differance to the middle class. or the low class. ihave worked hard for 50 years , now i live on a small income , can,t even afford to eat , or go anywhere because of george bush has spent all the money .. looking foward to ending this life

Does Iowa has too much power. Sure, but so what? America has too much power too. Why do we care about job outsourcing anyway? Is it not that Indians and Chinese earn much less than we do? Should we not balance the salary around the world, maybe? We should earn about X10 less and the Indian should earn X10 more.

The question about Iowa is stupid and dumb.

"..I would rather have Clinton as president than to have another of someone who does not have a clue and got elected because of his father"

AND she's only a senator and presidential candidate because of her HUSBAND. So what's the difference?

Lay off Iowa, would you!? I can't stand all this stupid bickering about Iowa having too much power. Think of it this way. It gives us all a chance to hear the candidates before all the hoopla. It allows for a great deal of the lies and rumors to be sorted through before the big states have to vote. It also creates a more level and better advised playing field. Don't you want to know the candidates a little better before you vote?

Silly system, this whole primary business. And what is with the 2 parties only? Where is the competition? Hey, if we can have a seperatist party acting as the official opposition and all heck didn't break loose, then surely to God ammendments can be made to the state primary legislations to make it easier for the Libertarians and Greens and Independant Texas parties to get on the ballot.

Brains, experience and ability, that's Hillary.

You gotta do more than wish or preach about change, and that's all Obama has done. On the other hand Hillary's accomplishments are many.

HILLARY 08!

I read every e-mail and I would like to say something about it. The power to choose an American Presiden will be in the general election and you will decide it. But American need to think harder about one point ECONOMY. Every country in the world depend of an economy , and it determine one position in the world. American is the power in the world for their economy. Right now. American need to choose a president that will be aggressive to apply policies that will recuperate it. If you don't think about it. American will lose soon their power in the world. Don't think about he/she is the best candidate because he/she is young, charismatic, has new ideas or change, the color or gender, chatolic, baptist, or mormon.
I think you need to think about the candidate that will do the best for the country and you like or not the candidate, you need to vote for the best for the country and not for the party. Maybe this candidate don't look nice or young ,or happy, or charismatic, etc. But this person or candidate will do the best to recuperate the economy.Think, the reality is that ,any work need experience. When you apply for a job the company ask you "what experience do you have for it." the company don't look color, gender or religion because the company need to choose a person that will help to improve their business to compete with others companies. Look back and see the present, and think who will be the next president that will do the best for the country and the world.
American, wake up!! and choose a president with your head, and not with your heart.
Gb.

Scary thought…that Texas would set the pace. I'll have nightmares over that one.
Must be something in the water down there.

I think we should have all the primaries and caucuses on the same darn day.

That way no state would have an advantage. It's goofy to think any one state should set the stage.

Iowa doesn't mean that much. Wait for NH and Super Duper Tuesday!

I am trying to understand why Americans are infactuated with the people of Iowa and their thoughts on the candidates. I trust they can plant a mighty good crop of corn and bake homemade apple pie.. But do they represent all of America.. I don't think so. I would expect this important night to come from a more diverse larger state with different thoughts. Living 15 minutes to the east of Iowa in another state, I just envy Iowa cause their taxes are alot cheaper than this state. Would We move there, no!!!

To all of those whining about Iowa not representing the US, what state would be better? California poeple and values certainly don't play well across the US, Texas has a higher hispanic population than average, so does Florida. Do we want the elitists in LA and NY going first?

Iowa is a small state full of decent working-class folk. If a candidate can't get these people to be on their side, then they can't (or at least shouldn't) be elected.

I would not mind regional or selected state groupings as an alternative - have 3 or 4 mass primaries about 6 - 8 weeks apart, long enough to allow candidates to visit and politic in the selected states, small enough groupings so a candidate can't run away with the win on the first set.

Clinton would be great for the country to have another person like Bush would be
wrong for America we need to elect someone who has a vison of what America
should be and needs to be.It would be a welcome change and a fresh start for the country.

Iowa has high education ranking when compared to other US states.

I would be a lot more concerned if say… Texas led the presidential election process.

I like that we start with a heartland state and go from there.

I would rather have Clinton as president than to have another of someone who does not have a clue and got elected because of his father

It doesn't matter - if it weren't Iowa it would be some other state and we'd be discussing the same topic under a different name.
It's got to start somewhere - and those who suggest Iowa isn't representative of the rest of the country are correct - I think Iowa represents the best of the country.

The caucus should be in another state look at the break down of population

I moved to Iowa 4 months ago from DE.

IA and NH have too much influence since candidates drop out because of these events. Perhaps these (drop out) candidates could survive, and even win, if other more representative states were the initial states.

But the pro side of the argument is that candidates can start in a small state, get their messages and organizations ironed out, on a relatively small budget; and the people really get into the process and really check out the candidates. It's been really a great experience to be able to see the candidates up close for myself.

America!
“United we stand, divided we fall.”
We have become a nation so divided, we now think only along party lines and not as Americans. We are filled with hated and bitterness towards one another.
Why do you think the political and corporate machine doesn’t like the Caucus idea? It is because it gives too much control to the people. Oh, by the way I hope that you still remember what “We the people” means, but it doesn’t seem to appear that way. We now have corporate money and people in power who abuse those rights, offering car rides and weenies for your vote.

For twenty eight years we have had the same two families in the White House. You would think there would be someone else to choose from with over three hundred million people in this nation. Change is not putting the same people in power, whether in the White House or Congress. No more Bush’s or Clinton’s, or any other good old boy: this would be real change.
I hope that the people of Iowa, and soon New Hampshire, remember what we stand for and what is at stake.

Remember 9/11! What kinds of people fly airplanes into buildings and killing thousands of innocents? Do you think they are going to stop when we turn and run? They will continue to hate us and what we stand for. I have spoken to a lot of service men and women who are proud of what they are doing and state that they are making a difference. THEY are standing the line! Do you think that they care that the soldier next to them is Republican or Democrat? We are at war, whether you like it or not. We only need to look at Europe and see they have lost the battle to Islam because they were afraid to stand and speak up.

Do you honestly think that oil prices will go down should we leave our position in the Middle East? We have become addicted to oil and we make no effort to change. Yet we make no sacrifices of our own.

We have people in power wanting to raise taxes so that they can spend more and both parties are guilty. We are paying more tax than when there was a “Tea Party” in Boston and we have less representation now.

Does Iowa have too much power? I hope so. I hope this will truly be a crossroad in American history and not the same old establishment controlling your vote. Vote your heart Iowa!!!

I beg to differ Chris in Columbus. If anyone has a chance it's Clinton.
There isn't this big wave of hatred. This is just a bunch of crap that is being put out there! Truth of the matter is Clinton is the force. Go ahead and support someone else as long as it isn't Obama. He will never have a chance. He is an unknown. Even the guy on cnn said Obama too green. Anyone but OBAMA

All Primaries and Caucuses should be on the same day in all fifty states. This hype about the first election contest and the next couple of ones are just silly and overrated. 2.9 million out of 300 million does not mean anything especially if we also abolished the electoral college.

Most problematic part of the Dem Iowa caucus is that the process deters certain demographics from participating, such as workers with nightshifts, single parents, older or ailing people, soldiers, etc. This is the main reason Hillary will not place first. NOT DEMOCRATIC. NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

Iowa feeds the world! I don't believe they have too much power here. After all, there are plenty of other states to help decide the president if someone doesn't like the outcome in Iowa. I'm so tired of these reports about how bad the Iowa Caucuses are! Getting people involved is a bad thing…right….

I think it's great! Edwards will look you in the eye and tell you outright that if, tomorrow, all of Congress AND the President were Democrat…or Republican…wouldn't resolve the problems. We have to start at the source of big money that buys and influences votes…corporate greed and corruption. John Edwards has been fighting that greed and corruption in the courtroom for 20 years…and winning! For common people. I am a very disgruntled Independent who has historically voted Republican. Not this time! Living in Iowa, I've had the opportunity to meet the candidates. I've looked them in the eye. John Edwards grew up poor and from a small town. He relates to the majority of Americans. His message is consistent and his passion for his beliefs and what it will take to turn America around is unparalleled. Hillary is more of the same…Washington politics personified! Obama would make a great running mate for Edwards. Give him some more experience. Then, on to the presidency in 2016!

If anyone has no chance, it's Clinton. There is a wave of hatred so wide in this country that she'll be lucky to get a quarter of the vote. Nobody wants her, not democrat or republican.

The primary system in this country is a joke. Lets have everyone have their primary at once and quit giving so much power to 250,000 people out of 300 million.

BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH, BUSH no thanks why should have an EMPIRE!!!!!! WAKE UP NO MORE OF THIS CRAP!!!!!

Yo Quiero Taco Bell. And I want Hillary Clinton as President. Senor, I only work here in da US of A. Am a resident alien. Of course I live in Iowa, but you know, it is the land of da free. Amigos, lets all just get along. If you don't like me for where I come from, remember, Taco Bell is just around the corner and I'll be there to say hi.

YES there is TOO much attention paid to the Iowa caucuses by the media who wants to write this election the way they want and completly disrespect and disregard the choices of the rest of the nation.

Here's a solution: do some research, and then vote for whomever you want. Whenever your primary is. Then it will really reflect preferences, not just "momentum" and "viability" and so on. If everyone did that, it might change "viability" instead of supporting the media's love of "inevitability".

Iowa and New Hampshire are about important as a pimple on a teenager..

Why are we locked into this system? Does Iowa really represent all of us?

Why does someone always bring up Christ in every ticker? I love JC, but people, stop the "Founding Fathers built this Nation on Christian Values" speech. They built this nation trying to ESCAPE religious rule. They also owned slaves and did not allow women to vote.

Why would anyone vote for Hilary other than name recognition? She has as much experience in foreign policy as Oprah and Obama combined.

Why would anyone that makes less than 150,000 a year vote Republican? Because the candidates don't believe in dinosaurs, gays, or abortions?

GOP, pick Ron Paul.

Dems, pick EDWARDS.

I'm sure I'm in the vast minority here in Iowa, but I agree that the caucus/primary system needs to be changed. (Maybe it's because I'm sick of the nonstop ads on tv and radio, and the political phone calls I get every day.) I like the idea of pushing the first primaries/caucuses back to April… the presidential campaigning is starting way too far ahead of the general election. I also like the idea of changing which states get to hold the first primaries for each general election… but good luck with coming up with a new system that all the states will agree on. (Maybe draw names out of a hat to determine the order in which the primaries are held.) I don't agree with the idea that Iowa and New Hampshire decide the election, because there's still several candidates in the running afterwards… but considering that some candidates drop out based on caucus results, we do often end up narrowing down everybody else's choices, and that hardly seems fair.

Ron - Tx - The only thing obama will need a broom for will be to sweep up his lost votes. A vote for Obama is a shoe-in for the next republican president. Wake up people. Say what you want about Clinton - but she is the force. Who cares about the past. We can't live in the past. We need to look at the future. The future is Clinton

Someone give Obama a broom, because he's about the sweep the competition!

How about having national primaries instead of just a few states having the priviledge. We are " We the people."

Of course Iowa, New Hampshire, and the other early states have too much power. Two percent of the population is deciding who gets to compete for the presidency? It's preposterous, and suggesting otherwise is naked political pandering. (I'm looking in your direction, Clinton.)

We really have to re-think the entire primary/caucus process. Is it possible to divide the country into zones and hold primaries in each zone at pre-determined dates? These dates could be arranged so that a different part of the country votes first at each presidential election. Of course the idea does have the disadvantage of being sensible. The states have simply GOT to surrender some of their foolish pride for the greater good of the country.

Fair Tax is for the people?? It is incredibly regressive it is basically a 24% sales tax on everything you buy. Just wait to see what it will do to the auto industry and other durable goods. People will wait a lot longer to buy a new car if the cost goes up 24%. Not to mention what it would do the already troubled housing market if the home interest rate is taken away.

Don't throw away the Democrats chance at the General Election

Too late. Look at the candidates. Not one moderate.

oops TX has 34 not 84 Electoral college votes — my bad

For a state which only has 7 ELECTORAL VOTES (compare CA 55, TX 84, NY 31, FL 27 –> NH 4) is it fair to have a 20% IMPACT on the outcome of the presidential primaries??

NO!!!!

Isn't it about time to scrap the unfair "first in the nation caucuses or primaries and the outdated electoral college votes"??

Although I would never begrudge the money poured into Iowa to help their economy nor their unique opportunity to meet all the candidates — yet I'm downright jealous because by the time my state finally has it's primary elections the nominees will probably have already been decided FOR me!!

There must be a more equitable way to have a say so in narrowing the field of candidates and a better way to count the popular votes (rather than the state vote). EVERY VOICE needs to be heard - weak or strong — that's what America is all about.

We really need to review the nomination process that the major parties have. I think that all of these primaries and caucuses need to be held later in the year. If this trend of earlier primaries and caucuses continues, we'll have those primaries for the next cycle starting a year after finish the previous one (having 2012 race start in 2010 or earlier).

As was stated elsewhere on CNN.com, Iowa is one of the most split state between the two major parties.

Don't throw away the Democrats chance at the General Election- OBAMA can't win the General!

I don't think we should put too much in Iowa. It's like they start off small and then get to the bigger states. Should we focus on tonights events? Of course we should. We just need to keep in mind Iowa is the first of many. Clinton 08

yes… Iowa, and the other priviledge states that vote before everybody else…..

I want to see the day that the primaries are moved back to April, when ALL states have to vote after certain day, no special advantage to anybody, so all candidates have to campaign EVERYWHERE!!! and not only in the first 4…..

I live less than 75 miles from the White House…and I have not seen any one of them!!!! how ridiculous is that!!!!???????

If you bring all the troops home, where will they work? Have you forgTTEN the depressin?
tooALL CANDIATES

Wade-get a life and stop worrying about things you don't know anything about.

Romney (as are most of the politicians) is a political opportunist with no real desire to do anything for the people, just the craving for the presidency-there is nothing safe about his plastic "i'll say/do anything to get a vote" sham.

Your a nutcase.

50 states, and one lf the lesser populated states gets the major role in the election of the president.

Sorry, someone read that back again? I think I missed something.

Too much power and not enough brains. The fact that Clinton is polling so high proves this fact. I am stunned that she has so much support considering she is almost Bush's clone.

She voted for the Patriot Act and for the Iraq war.. How can anyone support a person who voted to reduce our liberties and freedoms?

Anyone who supports the Patriot Act is un-American.

Yeah, Iowa has too much power, cause it will effect other states people's votes…
Cause, yeah, we, americans, are stupid…

Hillary for president. As a working woman she knows budgets, as a mother she knows health care, as a senator and former first lady she knows politics and white house strategies and she comes with a built-in good will ambassador.

The people in 40 or more states could also argue that California, New York, Florida and others have too much power in deciding the presidential election. Whether someone is from a rural or minority background should make ZERO difference in how much power they are allotted. In a democracy, it's one voter and one vote, and everyone will get their chance to speak up. The people of Iowa at least take the job of electing a president seriously.

Iowa? I live in Iowa and the answer is "They think they have the power" Look, less than 10% of the population goes to the Caucus, that's about 250,000 people and they think they say they can choose the president. Please! If the rest of the country thinks this is important, then we truly are in trouble.

The political pandering here this time is just that, high paid pandering.

Two different voting systems? Yes, that's right Republicans straw poll and Democrats caucus and the way those votes are tallied are not a true indication of anything.

Ask yourself, do you want to see who is voting for who and do you want to be seen voting for who you choose or would you rather do it in the privacy of a voting booth, you know, a primary election where 40% or so turn out for a true individual vote?

It's true ballyho and the rest of America needs to catch on, Hew Hampshire is a far better test than this foolishness.

The question isn't "if" they have too much…it's why the heck DO they have too much? They really just need to put all 50 primaries on the same day, so I don't have to watch from afar as Hilary and Huckabee run around for two months, seeing who can pose with the most corn stalks?

As a state, it's a terrible cross-section for the demographics of America, and their values and concerns don't seem to accurately reflect those of the nation as a whole as a results.

Factor in that winning in Iowa results in your party nomination more than 50% of the time, and I'd say it's insane that they have as much sway as they do. And something seems just absurdly arrogant about New Hampshire claiming that, by its very own state laws, HAS to have the first primaries. It's terrible.

it is just a prediction

They should have primaries/caucuses of the states in the order they were admitted to the union.

This whole caucus situation is a joke. Iowa has only seven electoral votes and this is not even a primary. Next you have New Hampshire with four electoral votes. Another joke. Tuesday Feb.5th will show something as some big states will be at stake. Iowa and New Hampshire are just psychological voter sentiment. If the voters in the bigger states are impressed by how a candidate does in these states then they are not doing their homework. Most people do not have a clue on what the candidates have really said on specific issues and the candidates so far have shown a lot of wholes in their knowledge of what the world is all about….As Ebenezer Scrouge would say, "BAH HUMBUG".

BE AN INFORMED VOTER AND MAKE SURE YOU VOTE…

GOD BLESS US ALL AND THE UNITED STATES

All the votes should be cast in every state; then counted from every State at the same time in one central location in the Senate. These votes come from the Electoral College voters. Are the Caucuses attempting to reduce the work required of the Electoral College members?

The Independents only need one voice to get on the final ballot, thier own; and when President the independents would be self accountable and so independently tustworthy, while the partisan candidates will still be in a party at the Whitehouse.

So declare republican, Democrat, or as intended: independence.

Where is the question? Of course Iowa has too much power.

It is not a question of Power it is what to do with it.

Hillary cannot be trusted with power that scares the heck out of me and sends shivers down my spine.

I say Mitt Romney he is the safe choice.

Instead of being upset about the power of Iowa, be upset by the power
of Christian voters. Are we confused. Christ, unlike the god in the old testament had a new message which was to turn the other cheek, and don't get involved in politics. So all you so called Christ followers think before you vote this
time. Any guy running for office that is "christian" may not be who he
claims. Look at what a huge mistake you all made last time. Bush
not only raped Iraq, got thousands of non milatary and US troops killed, but he took all you good tax paying hard working people's money
and gave it to his friend's in the oil, security, and defense contract
business. Now the world hates us and we owe China more money than
we are worth. The buck is in the toilet, the middle east is a mess, the
economy will take years to fix, jobs are going to India, and you are still obsessed
with things that don't matter like same sex sex. Jesus would say that we
should busy ourselves with feeding the poor, not with elections. As soon as
we get off track all hell breaks loose, so start pointing the finger at the
people that are responsible for this mess we are in.

Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the whole country. I'd much rather see a national primary in mid summer and have the conventions only to choose the running mate and formalize the campaign. The Iowa caucus system is especially a bad way to choose a candidate. I mean, no secrete ballot- talk about subtle intimidation. And you can only participate if you come in the evening. What about the people who have to work nights, have kids, or need to travel? I can't believe nobody has ever sued for disenfranchisement over the whole process.

Then again, Iowa and New Hampshire only have as much power as we let them have. What I mean is I will vote for who I want regardless of what happens in Iowa or New Hampshire. If you make your decision based on what happens there, you are just a lemming.

In a word: yes.

John Edwards for president!

GEAUX HUCK!!!!
FAIR TAX BABY YEAH!!
TAKE BACK THE POWER PEOPLE, AFTER ALL ITS ALL ABOUT US—THE PEOPLE!!