Yes and thank god CNN is there to give every second of each moment and every minute with instant results and geez I can handly contain myself……

American History 101: This piece says "It IS, after all, the first election since 1960 that an incumbent President or Vice President haven’t been in the race"; but in 1960 the incumbant VP Richard Nixon DID run. He lost to John F Kennedy.

English grammar 101: It should say: "that an incumbent President or Vice President hasn’t been in the race".

The continued lack of media coverage for John Edwards is, in my eyes, astounding. Do CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times (to name my most commonly consumed media) think we lack the mental capacity to comprehend the infinite complexity of a three candidate race?

ANY ONE BUT HILLARY

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/02/biden-highlights-clinton-pakistan-gaffe/

The republicans will shred Hillary in the general election. And the 3rd party candidate will cut Hillary at the waist. Leaving Republicans smooth sailing into the white House.

Hillary ready from day one? HAHA laughing
to hard. What is she going to do start a war with Pakistan because there not holding the president election again after they already had them last October.

Their is so much baggage and incompetence in Hillary. Swift Boating will be redefined as something you do to be nice LOL.

And all these 3rd Party candidates are hoping she wins They know half of the Country will not vote for Clinton. And there will be a huge void of voters that will not vote for Hilary or Republican. Most of that void will be Democrats and Independents. Now we have a 3 way race. Democrat vs Independent liberal vs republican. That equals republican wining.

Obama Edwards or Biden for 2009 so the 3rd party candidate cant split the democrats into 2 and leave the republicans unchecked..

It's the first presidential election since 1952 in which a sitting President or Vice Preseident has not been seeking their parties' nomination. Richard Nixon ran in 1960 while he was Vice President.

In 1960 Nixon was the incumbent Vice-President.

Sorry folks but I haven heard any body saying out loud:- this is him or her…. what is this? Am I an Americn ONLY because my opinion is like all the other 2 or 300 million US Americans ?? Forget it… I am Me and i don´t give a hoot about politics, religion, race, where´re you from… My choice is solid… it can only be Hillary !! Who else has the brains, legal and emotional because the Clintonhave everything what the others lack totally.. I am a professional… so why should I waste my time on nice, religious folks that haven´t seen the inside of any college apart from the kitchen. I want to see professionals do the trick of pulling MY country out of this quackmire we got ourselves in by following the wrong face… You hear me? You won´t…. anymore …. other than:- Hill, you go back to your HOUSE and clean it out…. Donah… in the Canary Islands.

Nixon was Eisenhower's vice-president when he ran in 1960. Try 1928 as the last time the field was open.

In 1952 neither Eisenhower or Stevenson were incumbents.

Iowa people just do their job, like you said they are serious….and informed. Everyone else provides the money and the hype.
Sometime just report on some of the things going on in Iowa besides politics.
Wind power and bio-fuel are coming on strong, hopefully we can help be the future for energy independence.
Besides, you can afford to live here compared to many places. I live on 12 acres in a very nice wooded area…..my taxes are $600 a year, my brother's 5 acres in WA state cost him about $300,000 and his taxes are over $4,000 yearly. No traffic hassles and I feel completely safe living in the country on my own.
EVERYONE CAUCUS!!

Would you like to know which candidate is closest to your personal political view? Take the test and find out! http://www.electoralcompass.com - now online, just before the Iowa caucuses.

Good luck!

If there is TOO much attention paid to the Iowa caucuses, it is the media's fault for making it into the circus it has become. Let the people decide, and then simply report the results.

Wasn't Nixon the incumbent VP (under Eisenhower) and on the ballot (ultimately losing to Kennedy in the general election) in 1960??

With such low turnout (6% in 2004), how can you still claim that Iowans take their role seriously - or rather, "SERIOUSLY". The caucuses on the Democratic side violate core democratic principles such as one person, one vote, and the secret ballot. Even if my candidate comes out on top, I would argue that the process is deeply flawed. Iowa shouldn't have undue influence on the nomination, and it should democratize its procedures to attract more participants and create a fairer process.

A better system would be random selection of 5-10 Congressional districts across the country every four years who would get to vote first. This would provide a representative cross-section of the country, and still be contestable for lesser-known candidates without the big bucks. Holding off a bit on announcement of which districts were chosen could also shorten the whole process, which has gotten way out of hand.

"Tradition" is a weak rationalization for maintaining a deeply flawed process with horrible democratic deficiencies.

This is a wide-open field in a way that hasn't happened in a *long* time. However, 1960 had Eisenhower-VP Richard Nixon in the race. Now, 1968, after Pres. Johnson dropped out, didn't have a sitting President or VP in the general election (though Nixon was a former VP at the time). To get one without a sitting or former President or VP in the primaries even, you have to go back to 1928.

John Toden
Dept. of Political Science, U. of New Mexico

Correction: 1968 did have Johnson-VP Hubert Humphrey in the general election. 1952, after Truman bowed out and his VP failed to get the democratic nomination, was the last time when there was no sitting President or VP in the general election.

"It IS, after all, the first election since 1960 that an incumbent President or Vice President haven’t been in the race. "

Huh? Richard Nixon, 1960.

The only thing i suspect that can stop Obama from winning tonight, is a Clinton willing to defeat Obama so bad, asking her supporters to caucus for John Edwards. In this case, she will end up in third place but will kill an Obama mumentum to the nomination.
Otherwise, it's Obama's time.

CNN your corrupt liberal feathers are showing. Slick Huck isn't a "massive underdog". After getting a free ride with our corrupt press he's now the front-runner in Iowa. If Mitt Romney had gotten the same "favorable" press then he'd be at 50% in the polls there. Just the facts CNN ………..Just the facts

Mr. Roberts states this is the first election since 1960 without an incumbent President or Vice President in the field. Did he forget about Richard Nixon?

1960 Richard Nixon Incumbent Vice President. Try 1952.

Wasn't Nixon an incumbent VP in '60?

Someone should remind John Roberts that Richard Nixon was the incumbent vice president in 1960 when he ran against John Kennedy in the 1960 election.

What? No mention of John Edwards! He is very much in this race. Cover yourself in case he wins tonight.

IN WATCHING AND LISTING TO THE DEMOCRATIC CANIDATES FOR THE LAST YEAR AND EVENING, I BELIEVE THE THREE (EDWARD, CLINTON AND OBAMA) HAVE STATED IN DETAIL WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AS PRESIDENT. BUT WHAT THEY FAILED TO COVER WAS THE MANY DOMESTIC ISSUES IN AMERICA MORE, AND HOW ARE THEY GOING TO CLEAN UP THE MAJOR PROBLEMS LEFT UNDONE BY THE "BUSH" ADMINISTRATION TODATE??

I FEEL THAT THE REPUBLICIAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES STARTED THEIR CAMPAIGNS WAY TOO EARLY AND SPENT IN EXCESS OF MONIES RECEIVED, WHEN THERE ARE MANY PROGRAMS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDER FOR CLEANING UP THE DEBITS AND THE WAR EXPENSES YET TO COME. UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. THE HOUSE AND SENATE SHOULD NOW STOP ALL THE "BUSH" EXPENSIVES AND END THE WAR'S.

I DO HOPE THAT WHO EVER BECOMES PRESIDNET, SHE OR HE NOT LET THE COUNTRY DOWN ON THE MANY PROMISES THEY HAVE BEEN SHOUTING ABOUT THE LAST YEAR. ALL THE CANIDATES NEED TO GET BACK TO THEIR JOBS AND GET SOME WORK DONE!!

The 1960 Election included then Vice President Richard Nixon.

As a former Iowan, (I moved for employment reasons and not because I wanted to,) I sometimes object to the notion that Iowa is undeserving of the attention paid to it every four years. I firmly believe that it is Iowa's small stature, and grass roots appeal that make it more worthy of the political spotlight than any other state.

While solid arguments could be made for having other state primaries and caucuses run earlier on the schedule, (New Hampshire could take a back-seat and I would applaud firmly,) moving Iowa to the background would do a disservice to the nation.

Iowa has the perfect mixture of:

-a well-educated populace, (third in the nation for overall excellence i believe)
-a MidWestern approach to life, (Iowans are fair and balanced in almost all things, and take time to consider all the options)
-a dedication to keeping politics local and personable, (read "Hardball" by Chris Matthews, you'll understand)
- you can't hide in Iowa. the people there are more likely to be irritated by your campaign ads than be swayed by them, that forces the candidates to actually go face-to-face with their electorate
-and most importantly, people are just plain wrong when they say that Iowa doesn't represent America. yes it's true that you'll find a lot of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants there, but you'll also find the middle class. and a lot of them too. Iowans represent the middle of just about everything, and when it comes down to it, politics in our nation are not made by the extremists, they're carefully adjudicated by the people in the middle.

and THAT is where your political fortunes are made or destroyed. sway the middle and you win the game.

But then again, I'm fiercely proud of my adopted state, and I just don't think America would be the same without the Iowa Caucus being first in the nation.

the whole iowa and new hampshire thing makes no sense to me. why were these 2 states allowed to get ahead of everybody else? image if 2 states had the actual public vote 2 weeks ahead of the rest of the county? nobody would accept that either. of course now nobody would dare say anything against this idiosyncrasy.

Nixon ran in '60 as an incumbent VP. This is the first race since 1928 with no incumbent running.

it was 1952 that a President or a Vice President did not run for office,,aint it great,,

Uh, John, your statement about it being the first time since 1960 that neither an incumbent president nor vice president is in the race is a little off the mark. I was only two at the time so I could be off a little, but wasn't Richard Nixon vice president at the time?

Wish it was January "09″ and this was all over. Already had enough for "08″

It is "Middle America" that is making a choice. Sometimes it gives candidates a chance to really destroy themselves or show how good they are. I just wish it wasn't so early.

The election of 1960 did involve a sitting Vice President - Richard M. Nixon. To find an election that meets the criteria you've established, you'll have to go back to 1952 when retired General Dwight D. Eisenhower ran against Illinois Governor Adlai E. Stevenson.

i'd like to know how much each canidate spent in iowa , divide that by 200,000 voters that actully show up and see how much each one spent per person , and then how much collectivly on each voter i bet the amount is staggering !!!!

Hey John, study your history. In 1960 Richard Nixon was the incumbent Vice President.

CORRECTION!!!
This is not the first time since 1960 that an incumbent President or Vice President haven’t been in the race.
Nixon was Eisenhower’s Vice President!!
In 1952 Truman’s Vice President Alben Barkley ran in the primaries.
In 1928 Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover defeated New York Governor Al Smith
I figured that someone who writes for a MAJOR news corporation wouldn’t get something like this wrong but…….

John — There was an incumbent VP running in 1960 — Richard Nixon. You'd have to go back to 1952 (although Harry Truman's name was on the NH primary ballot) or 1928 to find the last time no incumbent pres or VP was in the running.

In 1960, wasn't Nixon the incumbent Vice President?

On the contrary, the 1960 election did have an incumbent vice president running for president: Richard Nixon. The last election that did not have an incumbent president or vice president run was 1952: Ike vs. Stevenson.

Um…just for the record, Nixon was the incumbent VP in the 1960 election.

The correct answer is 1928.

Um… wasn't Nixon (the incumbent Vice President) on the ballot in 1960?

Correction: 1960 election was Senator JFK against Vice President Nixon. So we may have to go back even further in history in which the last election had no incumbent Vice President or President running for office. I belivee that it was 1952 when Eisenhower ran against Adlai Stevenson when President Truman decided not to run for re-election.

Aj

Honolulu, Hawaii

1960?

I know CNN likes revisionist history, (Operation Tailwind) but VP Nixon was a presidential candidate in 1960. If I remember correctly, it's really the first campaign without an incumbent VP or President since 1920. (1948 doesn't count, Truman WAS in the race, but dropped out after New Hampshire, similar to what happened to Johnson in 1968.)

Wasn't Nixon the incumbent veep in 1960? I think you may have to go back even further.

you might want to double check that fact in the third sentence, there was a vice-president running for president in 1960 by the name of Richard Nixon.

In 1960 Nixon ran and he was VP under Eisenhower in the term before that.

John Roberts,

"Whether he can pull more support than Hillary Clinton though, is still very much an open question."

You are probably the only one that didn't get the memo…OBAMA WINS IOWA!!!

" It IS, after all, the first election since 1960 that an incumbent President or Vice President haven’t been in the race."

Right. Because Nixon wasn't the Vice President in 1960. 1952, on the other hand, would be the correct answer, when GEN Eisenhower defeated Gov. Stevenson.

1960… 1960… that was the year all those dead people in Chicago gave Kennedy the win over Nixon. Incumbent Vice President Nixon.

Looks like CNN needs to issue a correction. Again.

John, get your facts straight.

Nixon was the sitting VP in 1960. The last time we had a presidential election with no sitting President or Vice President running as an incumbent was 1928.

Make 1952 the last year an incumbent President or Vice President was not running. Nixon was VP in 1960 against JFK.

Wasn't candidate Richard Nixon the vice-president in 1960?

Hey John, I seem to remember some guy named Nixon running in 1960, and I think he might've been vice president or something. But what do I know? You're the news guy.

Did you mean 1968? In 1960 Kennedy was running again incumbent VP Nixon, while in 1968 Nixon was just a former VP…

In 1960, Nixon was running as an incumbent Vice President (from Eisenhower). I think the last time was in the 20s or 40s, maybe?

Sorry, but Richard Nixon was the incumbent vice president in 1960.

Then Vice-President Richard Nixon ran for president in 1960. In 1952, there was no sitting president or vice-president on the general election ballot, but Alban Barkley, Harry Truman’s Vice President, unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination. The last time there was no president or vice-president on the general election ballot was 1928.

Iowa is essentually a stage set-up by the media for the candidates to playout thier campaign stories to the nation. If the media didn't cover the Iowa process, far less money would be spent -and the results from that state's caucus would have far less meaning. Who will profit the most from the estimated $2 billion price tag on this campaign? Of course you know….John…CNN and it's peers. You may have already gotten a large raise from the absurdly high level of cash flowing from special interests through DEM and GOP party bank accounts and into the greedy hands of your management.

It IS, after all, the first election since 1960 that an incumbent President or Vice President haven’t been in the race.

Umm.. Nixon in '72?

Ummm…Dick Nixon was VP in 1960…Try 1920.

Ever notice, that unless their Senator is propositioning someone in the Men's room, you never hear anything about Iowa except during caucus time (And what's with the caucuses anyway– sounds like the winner is most likely the one who has the most schoolyard bullies threatening people to join with their candidate)?

They don't even have that many electoral votes (of course, that's another broken voting system) to make any real difference in November.

I'll be glad when tonight is over with so we can stop hearing so much about Iowa.

Well done on the fact checking, John. I may not have been around in 1960, but I do know that Richard Nixon was the Vice President back then.

I would like to point out two of the statements made in this brief post by John Roberts:
Iowans are SERIOUS about the role they play in choosing who will occupy the White House come January 20, 2009.

And: At most, a little more than 200 thousand people have participated in past caucuses.

Okay Mr. Roberts, which is it? My understandings is that somewhere around 8% of Iowans actually care enough about this country to do the job they have been entrusted with. That's just plain shameful and the press should go out of their way to let the rest of the country know what a group of lazy, irresponsible voters Iowans actually are instead of holding them up to be citizens worthy of this great responsibility.

Iowa is essentually a stage set-up by the media for the candidates to playout thier campaign stories to the nation. If the media didn't cover the Iowa process, far less money would be spent -and the results from that state's caucus would have far less meaning. Who will profit the most from the estimated $2 billion price tag on this campaign? Of course you know….John…CNN and it's peers. You may have already gotten a large raise from the absurdly high level of cash flowing from special interests through DEM and GOP party bank accounts and into the greedy hands of your management.

I realize that this article is a political opinion piece and not intended to be a factual news article, but I would still expect a political commentator to have some accurate knowledge of American political history. The statement:

"It IS, after all, the first election since 1960 that an incumbent President or Vice President haven’t been in the race."

would have had greater impact if it were correct. In 1960, the successful Democratic nominee was Senator John F. Kennedy while his Republican opponent was the incumbent Vice President Richard M. Nixon. The last election in which there was neither an incumbent President or Vice-President involved in the race was 1952 — General Dwight Eisenhower (R) against Governor Adlai Stevenson (D).

I hope your reporting of current political events is more accurate than your historic references.

Brian McLean
Prattville, AL

Richard Nixon ran for president in 1960. He was Ike's VP. I think you mean 1952. If I remember correctly, Truman considered running but opted not to.

You're wrong, bud. Nixon was the VP in 1960.

WILL THE REAL BARACK OBAMA PLEASE STAND UP?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama "Dreams from My Father."

"In the memoir, Obama describes his experiences growing up in his mother's American middle class family… Of his early childhood, Obama writes: "That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind." The book describes his struggles as a young adult to reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage. He wrote that he used alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine during his teenage years, to "push questions of who I was out of my mind".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html
"Mr. Obama was also the sole PRESENT VOTE on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also VOTED PRESENT on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate. In both of those cases, his campaign said, he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin "Mr. Obama did not bring revolution to Springfield in his eight years in the Senate, the longest chapter in his short public life. But he turned out to be practical and shrewd, a politician capable of playing hardball to win election (he squeezed every opponent out of his first race), a legislator with a sharp eye for an opportunity, a strategist willing to compromise to accomplish things.

His critics say Mr. Obama could have accomplished much more if he had been in less of a hurry to leave the Statehouse behind. Steven J. Rauschenberger, a longtime Republican senator who stepped down this year, said: "He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn't Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator."

"Asked why he ran for the Senate in a state where rank-and-file lawmakers have been called 'mushrooms' (because they are kept in the dark and fed, uh, manure), Mr. Obama said: 'Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0702240237feb24,0,4469899.story
"A land sale recorded this month ended the neighborly relationship between U.S. Sen. Barack Obama and indicted political insider Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, Obama's friend and former fundraiser."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070323obama-youth,0,4794506.story?coll=chi-homepagepromo440-fea
"The glare of the presidential campaign is shining on people previously hidden behind pseudonyms in Obama's memoirs. One of them, a convicted felon, demanded money from the campaign. Or else."

**When Barack Obama was running for the US Senate against Alan Keyes he gave an interview to the Chicago Tribune on 9/24/04 stating that he WOULD CONSIDER MISSILE STRIKES AGAINST IRAN AND PAKISTAN — chicagotribune.com 9/24/04 "U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to …" (used to be able to Google: missle bomb Iran Pakistan Friday IL Obama = and freely access the Chicago Tribune article yet within the past wk it has suddenly been ARCHIVED (and/or buried = Must be nice to have friends in high places in the media!!) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,0,5979825.story

How could Barack Obama have gotten it right when he wasn't even in the US Senate at the time of the Iraq vote 10/11/02?? http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

How come Senator Obama was the only one of two Senators who didn't even vote on the Iran resolution?? http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349

HOWEVER IF YOU COMPARE BARACK OBAMA'S CANDIDACY TO THAT OF JIMMY CARTER'S IN 1976 YOU WILL FIND THAT THEY ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL = out with the old establishment guard - in with the new non-Washington crowd. Hence, JIMMY CARTER'S position as an outsider, distant from Washington, D.C., became his best asset. The centerpiece of his campaign platform was GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION. He & his wife Rosyln offered firm family values and refreshingly humble untarnished appeal.

LACKING FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE JIMMY CARTER'S PRESIDENCY was dominated by the IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS, during which the United States struggled to rescue diplomats and American citizens held hostage in Tehran for 444 DAYS! By 1980, Carter was so unpopular that he was challenged by Ted Kennedy for the party nomination - and although Carter received the Democratic nomination, he lost the election to Ronald Reagan." (AND 12 long years of GOP in the White House) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

ALTHOUGH BARACK OBAMA WOULD LIKE TO COMPARE HIMSELF WITH JFK - IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT HE MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLES JIMMY CARTER - THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE WHO RAN ON A "WASHINGTON OUTSIDER" PLATFORM, OFFERING CHANGE FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE; WHO PRESENTED SOLID FAMILY VALUES; WHO HAD NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE - WHOSE "ON-THE-JOB TRAINING" BROUGHT 444 DAYS OF THE IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS.

Where will the dreams of change in America take Our Great Nation in 2008?? Perhaps PAUSE FOR RECONSIDERATION. AMERICA CAN NOT AFFORD ANOTHER NEOPHYTE - when the world situation is even more precarious than ever before!!! The choice is yours…

My mistake - Hoover wasn't a VP going into his 1928 victory.

Guess I'm qualified to be an editor at CNN.

Nixon was in the 1960 race, and he was a sitting VP. My guess is you have to go back to 1952, not 1960

Wait, Nixon wasn't really the Vice President during the Eisenhower administration? Or was he not actually as the top of the Republican ticket in 1960? Either way I think my history books might need some editing since this is the most trusted name in news (not sure what that says about news though)

1960 there was an incumbent Vice President Running - Richard Nixon.

I use to believe that CNN attempted to be, somewhat, a news organization. But your coverage of the Iowa caucus has convinced me that CNN is little more than a puppet for the establishment and big business elites.

By refusing to include John Edwards in your stories about the Iowa caucus–you're demonstrating for the world just how badly you want Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to win. I know you will try and justify your partial coverage by pointing to that ridiculous poll you released a few days ago–while ignoring the others that show Edwards as a serious threat to win the caucus.
But that point is easily rebutted by the way in which the Iowa caucus works. When the second choice of those whose candidates do not reach viability is included–John Edwards wins every time.

So, I am looking forward to you having to cover an Edwards win and a Clinton third place finish tonight. Maybe then, CNN will go back to attempting to be a serious news organization. I hope that's what happens because America doesn't need another major news organization that champions favorites rather than facts.

John, Nixon was the current VP when he ran against JFK in 1960. It has been since 1952 when neither the incumbent President (Truman) or the VP (Barkley) ran.

Ummm, wasn't Nixon the incumbent Vice President who ran for President in 1960?

Nice fact checking there.

"It IS, after all, the first election since 1960 that an incumbent President or Vice President haven’t been in the race. "

Umm, ya think so, John ??? Try 1928.

(For those who think it's 1952, Truman ran in the New Hampshire primary before pulling out).

In the 1960, Senator Kennedy defeated incumbent Vice President Nixion in the Presidential Election. 1952 was actually the last election year not to have an incumbent President or Vice President running when Military Hero Dwight Eisenhower defeated Illiniois Govenor Adlai Stevenson.

"…the first election since 1960 that an incumbent President or Vice President hasn't been in the race."

Ummm…..what exactly was Richard Nixon doing for a living back in 1960?

First I don't believe this guy(John Roberts). I have watched a couple times him trying to bring down candidates. On thursday morning he couldn't interview Obama while he was doing in Iowa rather was interviewed from cnn center. I just don't feel right that he is an anchor and should not be personal. I might be wrong but this is how I feel this guy is……..

It IS, after all, the first election since 1960 that an incumbent President or Vice President haven’t been in the race.

Wasn't Nixon the VP?

John I may be wrong but ….
you may be an idiot
in 1960 JFK was elected….
and exactly who did he run against …old whats his name the VP oh yea NIXON<<<

so now how far back do we go…

How come there were no interview to Hillary Clinton the CNN "front Runner" this morning. Something definately a miss! ooh wait, it is John Roberts who was conducting the interviews. Now I know why!
Ooooh well, alot of convectional thinking in this election cycle.

Moron,
Incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon ran in 1960
RJ

Just like CNN want us to think. This Kind of reporting shows why American people don't believe in their media networks!

Actually, in 1960, Richard Nixon was an incumbent Vice President and was in the race (losing to John F. Kennedy).

I just have one question, how come Obama is being reported now and the media has lowered Hillary expections in the nation so much. I just don't think this equals to july-Dec media attention that she got with all the anchors pushing Hillary down our throat. I just don't believe this guys. What made them think now we can pay attention to what they are doing and are not baised………Someone should do something about this if not what the media had been soft with Bush on Iraq war!

The amount of money candidates spend in order to get elected borders on the edge of being profane. I love how candidates talk about fiscal responsibility while they're spending millions and millions of dollars on commercials and signs and buttons. Our entire election process has turned into a three ring circus and the candidates are all clowns.

The Iowa caucus may seem over rated but it is a bell weather for the candidates. I put more value on the outcome of the caucus than I do any of the over used polling data.

I have been thinking fox news was the worst news organization but when I watch fox nowdays I think it is far better than CNN.
Hillary was not one of the candidates who get interviews on anything. I watched all the interviews this morning and I kept wondering how hidden she is and all what they are doing is flashing her around. I know she will get 4pm to 6pm coverage on Situation room. That is how our country is so screwed up with these news organization. If not careful they can just elect you the president then you are screwed with issues affecting Americans the rest of their life. I think the media has gotten so much power just like Cheney had over anybody in the country. I just think this is not right!

Hubert Horatio Humphrey, VP - 1965-1969, Democratic Nominee for President in
1968

I can not wait to flash this news network down my toilet drain after these elections!

Who cares CNN. I only come here to check what your posts are then I go hunt for news elsewhere. You were my favourite network but after this you are done.

Maryann I am with you 100%

Cnn, it is not time for this kind of stories. Stop feeding us with what we don't need just right now and focus on important things. May be John Roberts need to attend one of Obama rallies when not working for CNN and get inspired too.
I just don't have room to be swiftboated at this time with this kind of narratives!

Mike I am with you 100%

I hope John Roberts Get a life or CNN for that matter! Who has a room for this kind of stories. Just swiftboating the public coz Obama refused to be swiftboated by Novak. I know how John Roberts reports and it is high time for him to get an early retirement. I am quiting CNN to Msnbc after these elections!

Mike,
John Roberts still works for CNN? That moron used to cover American Morning and has no connection with Americans. Someone should be hinting to these networks what is behind the scenes with the consumers, I just hate him big time!!

o00OOOOOOOOO0PPSs.
what going on with John get it together out here your sounding like a fool.
Nixon buddy Nixon!

You mean the first election since 1952 without an incumbent President or Vice-President?

Brenda,
That guy John Roberts and wolf has one kind of convectional thinking and I bet Obama has shown how that is right from day one. They got it but you know they have to keep doing one thing over and over and over. May be that is why they are stuck in reporting carreers where they talk all day. I wonder how one would be able to do that.

January 3, 2008 - Iowa Caucus Presidential Preferences

IOWA
Democrats
Dec 31-Jan 2

Clinton 34%

Edwards 21%

Obama 25%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among women 38% to 24%, with John Edwards at 23%. Among men, Clinton is at 29%, Obama is at 26%, and Edwards is at 18%. 10 percentage points among the candidates could switch, with half (5 percentage points) coming from Clinton supporters.

WARNING! VOTER BEWARE!

ELECTIONS ABOUT TO BE RIGGED!

I think something will go horribly wrong in Iowa. Just wait and see. These elections will be rigged and you the American will be left without a voice. If you see Hillary away from the media, then there is something horrible that is going to happen. Then CNN will come out with BREAKING NEWS , BREAKING NEWS, NOW HILLARY IS THE WINNER OF IOWA CAUCUS! And you will tune in 24/7 or buy those newspapers. I just warn you right now that this is going to happen and don't get a heart break because remember I have already warned you. Try caucus then go about your life because these elections are about to get rigged.
If you see Giliuani Campaigning in Florida alone like a crazy person just know he got a clue. Remember you had front runners Hillary and Rudy? Ya, just wait and see what is going to happen tonight and remember Brian wrote this on the ticker.
They just want it to look real to the end and those guys use up that cash!

Unless we move to a system of simultaneous primaries/caucuses, some state will always be first, and that state will always get a greater level of attention and resources than they objectively deserve.

What bothers me about Iowa (and to a lesser degree New Hampshire and my own state of South Carolina) getting the attention they do is that they are not even remotely representative of our diverse nation. Perhaps a better solution would be a seven-week cycle, in which each week 7 or 8 states — deliberately selected to accurately represent the diversity of our nation — would cast their votes simultaneously. Each week an additional cycle of states would vote. Further, there could be a rotation, so the group of states that voted first in one election would vote second in the next, then third, etc., thereby allowing each state the opportunity to be among the first to vote every once in a while.

Just my 2 cents!

John Roberts is another neocon like Sean Hannity. He wanted Obama to win in Iowa so they can vet him later, that will insure republican will stay in the whitehouse.

Fortunately majority of the American are not fooled by the stunt neocons are pulling. First time i've seen neconconservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and others stumping for Obama. None of them vetted Obama, but if Obama is the nominee for the democratic party, they'll vet him so bad, Obama will hit the bottom of the ocean like a rock!

FRAN SCHEER,
I am with you. I hope the candidates will come forth and support Obama as their president. This can be done without whinning and we can become a united states of America again!

1952, Truman ran for reelection but dropped out of the race early.

You all are wrong.

MR. AMERICA is proud that all of you know your history so well!

MR. AMERICAN is NOT happy that EDWARDS was not mentioned. He is the candidate that most closely resembles Steven Colbert, which makes him the best candidate of the bunch. Mr. America loves Bill, but hates Hilarity as she is almost as much an inexperienced showpiece as Obama. The only qualified Dem in the race is EDWARDS.

Do your homework folks! This is not a choosing of the High School Prom King and Queen!

I like many of the candidates, but my wife and I drove six hours to Davenport to volunteer for Obama. After reading his book and researching the candidates, we strongly feel that he is the best person for the job. I've never travelled so far for a candidate, but we really believe in him. He is the best leader I've seen in my lifetime.

Mr. Mike, Huckabee does not care about middle class working people. He is a strike breaker. By crossing the Writers Guild picket line he as offended all of the union brothers and sisters round the world and deserves nothing but our contempt.

Bob, Ferguson.
IAM Local 2515

Forget Iowa…why do people put so much attention on Iowa? They are always wrong in the decision making process. They always gave us a winner who is unable to take the white house. And worst…they gave us the winner for one night and a different nominee takes over after the primaries. Lets go to our next stop…NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joe, Bellefonte PA January 3, 2008 7:08 am ET

If there is TOO much attention paid to the Iowa caucuses, it is the media's fault for making it into the circus it has become. Let the people decide, and then simply report the results.

WELL SAID JOE

May be you could say 1952 there was no incumbent Pres or vice pres.but in 1960 Richard nixon was VP.I think you have made a little error

Right you are folks. An unfortunate moment of sleep-deprived memory meltdown……copy amended to reflect the correct references of 1952 and 1928.
JR

Biggest problem with Iowa Dem caucus is that it's undemocratic. It deters whole demographic groups from participating, such as evening workers; single parents; older or ailing people; soldiers, or anyone else who may have difficulty going to an hours-long night-time meeting in freezing weather. This is a bigger problem than the fact that Iowa goes first. The results are not representative, NOT because it's Iowa but because it's a stupid process. Elections in a democracy should facilitate and encourage participation from everyone, not make it so uncomfortable or impossible to participate that such a miniscule section of the population actually votes.

STOP CALLING OUR CAUCUSES *ARCANE*!

STOP CALLING OUR CAUCUSES *ARCANE*! This is democracy as it should be - stand up *in public* for your choice, and be informed enough and thought through enough and convinced enough to defend your choice. It's far better than going into a little booth and making a choice that could be arrived at by some variant of a dart board!

Hey Donah LPdGC,

You don't know what you are talking about when you say that Hillary is the only one that has the credentials from a college. Oh, by the way, religious Mormon Romney HAS seen the inside of a college outside of a kitchen. The college was called Harvard, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude. He then went out and saved Baines and Capitol which allowed the company to parent businesses such as Dominos Pizza, Staples, inc., etc… Then he saved the Olympics from financial disaster after they had been found plagued from scandals of bribery and actually brought a surplus after the games were over. He then went and became the Governor of Massachusetts.

Don't put up ridiculous arguments that Hillary is the only candidate with credentials. Nearly all other candidates have equal, if not more experience and education as she has. And to think of today's claim that she would have the audacity to elect Bill Clinton to the supreme court, the very same court he lied to while under oath. What a joke. I don't know about you but i don't want one of the biggest liars acting as president, to also act as a judge in my country.

Bill Clinton said during his campaign, "It's the economy stupid".

All you idealist out there better think hard before you leap onto the Obama train.

This guy is full of hype and charm and if you're the type that can be led down the merry path (paved with lolypop and promises of a pot of gold at the end) then vote Obama.

Hillary Clinton should be shouting from the rooftops, "It's a crazy and dangerous world out there, there are factions that want to make 9/11 look like the primer for the next catastrophic event, it's the lack or healthcare and yes, yes, yes, IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID".

Hillary has far too much class to be shouting that from the rooftops, besides, she knows that WE KNOW THOSE THINGS!

One can not wish or preach for change. One has to work, and work hard to make changes happen.

You need the vision to see where changes must be made and the experience to know how to successfully make them a reality.

So, yes, we need change, that's a given, but I want someone who has the skills, knowledge and experience to facilitate the changes we, as a people are so desperate for.

Thanks MR. AMERICA for mentioning that EDWARDS was not mentioned.

Also, it is interesting to note the lack of political history exhibited!

1960, JFK v. VP Nixon
1952, No incumbents, IKE v. Sevenson
1928, No incumbents, Al Smith v. Hoover

The largest GOP fundraising candidate is missing from ALL of your reporting! Stop the propoganda and get on board the Ron Paul express. WAKE UP America, we are under assault from globalists who do not respect our Constitution.

Apparently there are only four candidates campaigning in Iowa. What happened to the other candidates? Have they already resigned from the race? I think it's a sad thing to see the press abused so badly as to not give fair representation to viable candidates. It looks as though, in CNN's eyes, there are several who have crashed already.

"Killed by terror?" Get a towel, you're going to need it to follow up all the brainwashing you've subjected yourself to.

It is always clear when you have Republicans posing as democrats on these types of blogs. They are always whining the old Republican mantras. Let's face it. Republicans through the generations have never wanted the less fortunate to aspire to more prominent positions in the world or to be educated to a level, which fosters such activity. Why else would they always gut the Student Loan and Grants programs every time they are in control of the purse strings. Anyone, which has served in the U.S. Military Honorably should be entitled to life long educational benefits, which pay for tuition and direct educational costs as well as Total Health Care Costs for the best care, not just the care available through the VA system.
Republicans have ALWAYS been willing to start a war and kill people for resources like Oil/Gold/etc., etc., etc… Always under the guise it is "Gods Will".
Use of religiously bigoted masses of ignorant people living in the U.S. has always been their chronicle for victory. They cannot rely on intelligent, truly compassionate people to support them. Their only ability to attack Democrats is with their ignorant meaningless mantra TALKING POINTS.
Continue your blunder and wake up to the smoldering Americans (most of us) which you have used and abused since the mid 90s when you took over congress. WE ARE ANGRY at what you have done to OUR Country and OUR Lives. We demand retribution including Conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney, Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rummy Rumsfeld an Want To Be acting President Bush, of High Treason and War Crimes. For what you ask? The slaughter of thousands of Americans, Hundreds of Thousands of Iraq's People and Afghanistan's People, that’s what.
I didn't spend three years of my life in the military watching my fellows guts being blown out to have my Freedom and Liberty stolen by thieves such as these.
If you want to support the rebuilding of America, then vote for people which have (even recently) directly confronted these issues in the House and Senate. Not the most familiar name(s) and hat droppers. Our Nations existence as a Nation exemplifying FREEDOM depends on it.

To call Huckabee an "underdog" seems to be a bit of a stretch. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term "underdog" as "One that is expected to lose in a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics." Huckabee has been anything but expected to lose. If you want to see a real underdog look no further than the laissez-faire touting, isolationism supportive, Constitutionalist Dr. Ron Paul. If there's anyone that deserves the underdog badge, it would be him.

LBJ was on the 1968 Wisconsin primary ballot but lost 37% to Eugene McCarthy's 56%, however he had dropped out of the race 2 days earlier.

VP Hubert Humphrey I believe may be one of the only to win the party's nomination without winning a single primary.

Aj

Honolulu, Hawaii

Finally! We are hearing from someone who makes us proud to be American's again!
(Barak Obama) We are a nation that has become tired of of devisiveness and political correctness and the status quo in Washington, amd I personally believe he is our best hope for a new day to dawn in history!

Lee Biggs/ White/female/middle class.

Are young voters Americans, then why are they voting for an man that does not respect his own country, I found that Barak Obama have unpatriot tendencies. First he gave the American people a lame excuse for wearing a flag pin, second he does not put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. When I saw that that act was enough for me to write him of indefinintely. I want a man in the White House with a convictions and love to the United States of America.

It is time for our country to start working together. Our country is in trouble and we need fresh,clear thinking from our leaders; not hacking away at one another and the business of the country not being accomplished. So good to see people taking a hearty interest in politics that has been lacking for some time.

Firstly I would like to commend mr Roberts in his seamless assimilation into life in the USA. I rember him from his time in Canada.
I have been watching your elections and must say I do not understand how it all works.
Should a third or fourth party emerge like we have inn Canada.How would a person get on the ballot.
Allthough you have 5 or 6 candidates for each party do they not represent one party line.
Two choices is all I see. Not very forward thinking.
Good luck to all the cadidates it makes for interesting times

I can't explain how I feel at the moment. It is so interesting to see people be so enthused about a person like Hil. The same way people was so sure about Bush. I just think it's amazing how you can't turn on your T.V. without seeing some news bashing Bush for another mistake he has made or some comedian making fun of our own president. You and some of those picking on him are the same folks that put him in office. Americans all over the world are regretting the DECISION they made. Now it's seems that there is a possibility we are STUPID enough to do it again. I was watching C-SPAN yesterday and this 83 year old woman called in and her words brought tears to my eyes. She said "America is trying so hard and New Hampshire back-stabbed us." I hate knowing alot of my fellow Americans are struggling just like this woman. We need more than just a person who knows how to campaign[ Hilary ] We also need someone who can do more than read off a piece of paper [ Mccain]