CNN

I'm glad to see that for the first time in years we have a solid selection of viable candidates. But I think there's some wisdom in what Regina has said. I see a real inclination in people to vote for Clinton because she's a woman, to vote for Obama because he's black, and the inclination to vote religiously certainly needs no publicity. Refreshingly, we have some very strong candidates for president. Let's consider them as such, rather than for their sex, color or creed. Otherwise we may wake up one day with a president whose agenda we know precious little about.

Hillary can make a real change.

Hillery is the best canadate for the jov. Obama is a breath of fresh air, but he cannot win the nomination nor can he run the oval office.

What a waste of time to vote in the Iowa caucuses. Final delegate count is

Obama: 66
Edwards: 47
Clinton: 166

#3 vote-getter receives almost 3x Obama's delegates. How broken is that? Looks like the fix is in.

Iowa is for bragging rights!

It's first, it's finicky, it's fantastic if you win,
and it's the pits if you lose, or don't hit your magic marker!

But it is decisive and the process hasn't changed much over
the years. It boosts some candidacies, and deflates others,
with little or no explanation for either.

In 1984, when Gary Hart garnered 17% of the vote and came in 2nd
behind Walter Mondale, he parlayed that story going into the New Hampshire
primary.

With two weeks to work that state, Hart won New Hampshire handily
and was photographed in a tennis outfit for the NYTimes.

Many of the 2008 caucus voters were still in diapers
when that occurred.

But when all the snow melts in Iowa, the only thing on the cherry tree
will be 16,15,14--Obama, Clinton, Edwards!

To Ike Woodbridge VA,

Hmmmm....that would make one-half of all Democrats who have been elected president recently that has won the Iowa caucuses. What was your point?

As usual, CNN is wrong. This is not the split in delegates.

I have really grown weary of the diatribe against the caucus process. As a former Iowan, I much prefer it to the primary elections I've participated in. Here's why.
First, it requires people to become informed. You very rarely have people come out and caucus simply because they think it's their patriotic duty – then vote for the glamour candidate because they like the way he looks or they saw a 1 minute ad on TV. Too many primary voters have no idea where their candidates stand on the issues. Remember, it's not just your duty to vote, but to be an informed voter.
Second, it is the most democratic of processes. People get together with their neighbors in living rooms, gymnasiums and meeting halls to discuss and choose a candidate.
Third, you do get a 2nd choice. While some may complain about that, I like it. It means that, if I know my candidate is not going to be a contender, I can throw my support to the person whom I like next best. In a primary, you don't get that option. By the time you find out your candidate only garnered 3% of the vote, it's too late to say, "well, in that case, I want candidate x." So, in essence, you get the candidate who more closely mirrors the attitudes of the electorate.
Last, it's not nearly as arcane or arduous as so many have made it out to be. In a nutshell, you go to your precinct caucus site (similar to going to your polling place) at a predetermined time. Once it gets under way, you stand up for your candidate. If they do not receive a pre-determined number of votes, you go to your 2nd choice or try to convince another non-viable group to join yours. Then, once all groups have that set number of voters, they take a count and you're done. If you can't follow that, you shouldn't be voting – because that's far simpler than getting a good grasp on the issues. [I know - I'll get lots of hate mail for that statement, but so be it.]
I think where people get all wrapped around the axle is on the issue of 'viability'. That's not so complicated either. Basically, you're there to elect delegates. (Remember the national conventions – where they select the nominee?) Each precinct only gets so many delegates. So you need enough people to justify a delegate for your candidate. They've already come up with a standard formula in advance (also not so complicated) and they just apply it to the number of people present.
Now – I haven't participated in the process since 1984. If a simple Iowa boy can remember this stuff over 20 years later, it shouldn't be that difficult for the average citizen (or newscaster) to grasp – right?

I was at a Clear Lake caucus last night...WHAT A JOKE. Out of 35 people, there was a three way time but they had only 2 delegates. So they did what Iowa tells them to do....

TOSS A COIN IN THE AIR

yes....Iowa decided presidential elections by flipping a coin and calling heads or tails....even the "chairwoman" didn't know how to flip the coin.

IOWA IS A JOKE...Don't believe them.

HILLARY CLINTON WILL WIN THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES NEEDED TO WIN THE NOMINATION OBAMA MIGHT WIN 1 OR 2 (IOWA AND ILL.) EDWARDS IS DONE HE HAS NO CHANCE IN NH . CLINTON WILL WIN THE MAJORITY OF THE DELEGATES AND WILL WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.... BILL CLINTON DIDNT WIN IOWA OR NH BUT HE WON THE WHITE HOUSE .. HILLARY CLINTON WILL WIN THE WHITE HOUSE!!

This is just the first round folks! There is still the debate on Saturday. I saw an article today that saws Obama's positives is 50% and his negatives are now 47%. O well, the media gives and the media takes away.

Hillary the better candidate?? (based on what...8 years as the surgeon's wife?? qualifies her for nothing...running to a state who would elect any Democrat (NY) – what has she done since she has been there...voted for the war in Iraq....then denied doing that....voted to fund the war in Iraq....then denied doing it....we want more...and deserve more

Be a traditional Democrat – John F Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you…ask what you can do for your country" –

I see nothing but promises of a socialist state from the field of Democrats – universal healthcare….800 billion in entitlement spending….gimme gimme gimme….higher taxes (and they don't even blink when saying this) – support of the country choking unions….high pay and great benefits….(and the companies they work for are either folding or moving the jobs overseas) –

Baffling group of entitlists – go back to traditional Democrats…ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU (for once)

I think the only reason why Obama won the Iowa because lots of republicans voted for him. Republicans know that if he wins the democratic nomination, they will win the white house again for 4 more years. Clinton is the only one who could win against the republicans in the general election and they will do anything not to have her win the democratic nomination

To Dee Ward Mena:
I agree with you in your assessment of CNN's pro-Obama reporting. But don't forget to include Chris Mathews, along with Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs, who are all completely disregarding any sense of fair, unbiased reporting. They now are, in fact, twisting Hillary's personality, experience, and agenda, to get across their hateful commentary. All the while, of course, they are giving a positive spin and inflating anything and everything that Obama does along the campaign trail. I used to rely on them to gain a fairly balanced perspective. They are blatantly biased in favor of Obama and against Hillary. How are these so-called reporters able to look at themselves in the mirror each morning before they set out to do their dirty work? What a disappointment! I just want fair and balanced news. Lord, am I going to have to tune into Fox for that!

Regarding the Win of Obama, it does'nt mean much. He has no experience just a greater talker like Deval Patrick from Massachustts. (Together we Can). He is a Phony. When people gets to the Debates, he will not survive. If he is the Nominee of the Party, i will be switching over to the Republian Nominee.

Hilary Clinton is a far better Candinate.

The comments on here from people not understanding the delegate count process are obviously from people who did not take the time to understand the process....it is NOT a simple % applied to the 45 delegates... but whatever....if you don't understand how it works, then your ignorance shows when you make ignorant comments...

And yes, even though Obama gains momentum going into the other primaries now, he got exactly ONE more delegate from all that than Hillary...at that pace.... I guess he has no chance... but we'll see... it will be interesting....

I believe that Mitt Romney is far better equipped for the office of president than Mike Huckabee would ever be. Huckabee's liberal position on both taxes and immigration are not what our country needs at this point in our nation's history. Huckabee's record as governor certainly isn't one to be proud of.
I believe that it's shameful that religion played its ugly role in the Iowa caucus and hope tthat Iowa's record (it supported the miserable Jimmy Carter, too!) is not one that other states will follow.

I'm a younger voter and this is the first political run I've actually showed an interest in. I'm assuming these delegate votes are CNN projected, not what they will actually get when everything comes down to it. And aside from being a preliminary poll for projecting the 'president'. What are the hard facts I can walk away from this with?

"I don't understand why Hillary Clinton will have more delegates than John Edwards when she is in third place".

Because Clinton got more Superdelegates that Edwards did, and so gets 1 more delegate overall, vene though he beat her in the caucus.

CNN's projections are as off as it's biased political coverage..

Regardless, Iowa has in reality said very littl we other than it would appear that the top three Democratic canidates are Obama, Edwards and Clinton., and put them in any order that you wish to. Since President Clinton did not win either Iowa or NH in his bid for the nomination, I really would not read too much into Iowa other than the rest of the field can basically be ruled out of the serious contender categogy.

I believe that part of the reason that the delegates are split the way they are is because it is a caucus. The rules regarding how things are split are different that it is during a primary. I think it what precincts report and how big the precincts are among other reasons. I DO NOT claim to be an expert on this, but it is the be I can figure since it is a CAUCUS.

I am glad that NJ is a primary state. I like being able to go in and cast my vote in the primary and watch the system work after that.

Come Super Tuesday, Hillary will clean house. Iowa means nothing. In recent time, the only Democrat that won Iowa and went ahead to win the presidency was Jimmy Carter.

I wouldn't think obama should be bragging just yet. I would think Iowa was almost a 3 way tie. And remember, Iowa is just the first of the primary season. Super Tuesday will tell the tale. The press acts like obama was the only person who got a vote at all. CNN has really disappointed me. I believe reporters should be unbaised. I know they all have favorites and that is natural but it shouldn't show in their work. Two that I am really disappointed in is Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs. These were two of my favorite people on CNN but the way they went after Hillary was terrible. Jack Cafferty complaining that Hillary kept saying "When I am your President" I heard obama say that over and over and ALL of the candidates use that phrase but I guess just Hillary isn't allowed to without criticism. Fox was more fair to Hillary then CNN. Maybe I should start watching Hannity and Combs instead of Cafferty and Dobbs. What a disappointment these two have been.

To Seth and Michiel who are confused about why Hillary comes in with one delegate more than Edwards, read comments from others further down. They explain clearly why Hillary finishes ahead of Edwards even though he had a half of a % point lead over her at the finish of the Iowa caucuses. Listen, with Obama winning 16 national delegates, Hillary 15, and Edwards 14, the race is still wide open. Cross your fingers, all voters who are sick of the status quo and want real change in our country. Hillary's and Edwards' voices of reason, are ringing out loud and clear. They are the real candidates for change, the ones who really know how to get the job done in Washington, who have show up for votes, and will fight everyday for everyone, including the 15 million Americans who will continue to be ineligible for health insurance under Obama's plan. On a host of issues, they have concrete plans that will improve our country's status on the world stage and improve the lives of all Americans across the country.

It is such a relief to find that the initial elation over Obama's win in the Iowa caucuses boils down to a one national delegate lead over Hillary, and a 2 delegate lead over Edwards. And, Edwards placed second with a half % of a point over Hillary. That's darn close to a tie for second in my book. Whatever, the two most qualified candidates are heading to New Hampshire with a lot of momentum and nearly tied, national delegate-wise, with Obama. Additionally, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton didn't win the Iowa caucuses but went on to become their party's nominees and win the general election. So, all in all, Hillary's, Edwards', and Obama's supporters should all be elated this morning.
For me, it's Clinton and Edwards who have articulated the best strategies for change in America. It seems their voices have not been lost in spite of the frenzy Obama's oratorical skills have created in his audiences, Oprah's influence, and the tremendous amount of money his campaign spent on ads and in saturating tv stations in Iowa.

Iowa is so obviously irrelevant, Obama & Huckabee? One thinks he's the second coming of Christ, they other doesn't know who he is or what he stands for. Maybe now, heading into the real contests they will be confronted with real questions on real issues. As we get more into this, commercials with crosses and Oprah and her considrerable weight shouldn't do much good. But then again the whole country does seem to be pretty naive these days. Better wake up America!

LOL!

Listen to all the bitter Hillary supporters. All the sour grapes turning to whine.

If she had won you would be defending the Iowa caucus.

Seems the inevitable candidate isn't so inevitable.

That's my concern about election. The vote of the people says one thing. The delegate says another thing and does not represent what the people say. The delegates tend to go with insiders, and Hillary has the advantage in this.

I wonder if it's another year of disappointment when the delegates do not go along with the will of the people. Let's hope not.

When the dust settles and the emotion dies down, all I'm left with from Obama is HOPE and CHANGE and more HOPE and "we'll remember this day as the beginning of HOPE and CHANGE". ONE COUNTRY! ONE NATION! UNITED! THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Geez, people. Americans just keep getting dumber and dumber. They don't want change. They just want inspirational speeches about nothingness.

Just how will we expect him to unite us when some are for the wars while others aren't? How will he unite us when one half wants Universal Healthcare and the other wants privatization? When one side will spend more and tax less and the other will simply spend more and tax more? When one side wants gay marriage and stem cell research and the other doesn't? When one side wants more secure borders and the other wants amnesty and fines for illegal immigrants?

I'm sick of everyone falling for the same old crap. All Americans want is more sunshine blown up their butts. We've all become so shortsighted that we go for the easy emotion of speeches rather than what's right and true or, God forbid, what may require sacrifice.

One year in the Senate makes you prepared to be President? In the beginning, HIllary was not even supposed to have a chance in Iowa. Then after the polls started coming in she was ahead by a wide margin. That must have shook up and angered the media because they began an all out attack against her while practically showering praise on Obama. The media wants a raise and I am fully convinced they had a hand in Obama's win last night in Iowa. What good would it be to tune in the various political programs if it was a cake walk for Hillary. The media has done their best to bring her down, even the more progressive side. So thanks to them, I feel like the more qualified candidate lost last night, pleaseing the media and giving them what they believe to be a much more interesting and exciting story to follow and report.

It seems that Obama's win netted him 1 extra delegate than Hillary. What's all the fuss over one delegate? CNN and its biased pundits didn't mention that fact. Edwards is the big winner of the three because he goes to N.H. with momentum. Hillary has the most super delegates and she is still winning nationally. Obama had his best day and what did he gain, 1 state delegate. HE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY FOR 1 DELEHATE. Well, king for a day.

Last night was the first time I actually saw the inside of how a Caucus works and this was the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Groups of people standing in corners and then raising their hand and calling off numbers to count their vote. Have a Primary like a normal state!

In answer to Dan Lynch's question: The number of registered Democrats in Iowa is about 1.8M. If the projections are correct, just over 400k of them participated in either the Dem or GOP caucus tonight. So about a 25% turnout, which for a primary/caucus is pretty decent turnout.

Remember, the caucus is not like a primary where one may vote at any time of the day and just be done with it. Iowa voters had to show up at a predesignated location for their precinct no later than 7pm for a process that takes up to 2 hours. With the cold weather, the number of folks who don't pay much attention to primary politics, night-shift workers, and people who don't want to stand in a crowded room with strangers for 2 hours - the turnout was pretty excellent.

So Edwards comes out of Iowa with only 2 fewer delegates than to top vote getter. Not too bad and a solid jumping off point for other primaries such as South Carolina where he might do even better.

Dan,
In primaries and caucuses the national trend is that only the most liberal democrats vote and only the most conservative republicans vote. This year, in iowa, The Democrats actually increased their turnout by about 75,000 voters. This, in large part, due to the work of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to bring new voters out. Republicans actually didn't increase the number of their caucus goers,likely due to the frustration republicans are feeling with their party in general, i.e., the war in iraq, the economy, George Bush, the scandals with Senators Vitter, Craig, Stevens, Lott,etc. this trend will continue across the country-the number of primary voters will be lower than general election voters. However, Obama and Hillary's historic campaign's are capable of increasing voter turnout to some extent. We can see if this is a trend if it continues in Wyoming this weekend, New Hampshire next week, then S. Carolina.

Democratic party leaders in Iowa estimated that around 236,000 folks showed up to caucus, far and away a record for either party. The Democrats' previous record was in 2004, when 125,000 or so showed up, and the Republicans set their record in 1980 with about 115,000 caucus-goers. The Democratic total for tonight was almost as high as these two records combined.

Iowans in my estimation are much more politically astute than most other Americans, and a caucus is much more demanding than a primary. Asking people to caucus means asking them to come out for a few HOURS on a work night to declare publicly – not privately, as in a primary – their preferred candidates. They discuss, deliberate, and change their minds, often having to go to second choices where their candidates are weak.

Hillary did not lose to Edwards by a full %. Edwards won 29.8% in iowa and Hillary won 29.3%. Cnn rounded up for Edwards and down for Hillary, as any statistician would have done or mathematician,let's get that straight first. Edwards can have bragging rights to be in second, but he placed second by .5% of a point. As for the state delegates versus national delegates, that has been spoken about already.

All of the leading democrats have been very divisive in their national politics and are damaged goods as national leaders of the country. They do not have kind words about us and do not care about us. This is also true of many of the republicans as well. Through trickery they have attempted to prevent the US military from winning in Iraq. They do not represent the people just a wing of their party which is very vocal but not representative of the people.

Give me a national leader who tells it like it is. I do hope that they will not be lawyers as my opinion of lawyers is as low as it gets. McCain seems to be a man of the people who has suffered for the people and he also seems to care about the people.

Why did Hillary only get one delegate less than Obama?

Because she got enough votes where it mattered.

Just another way of showing that the election process is flawed in the US (as it pretty much work the same way on the national level).

Now, I support HRC, but I think that the delegate form is outdated, and that a candidate should be elected on a majority vote.
If no candidate recieve 50.01% or more in the first round, it needs to go on until one candidate have more than 50% of the total vote, eliminating the candidate with the least amount of votes each round until only one remains, that candidate should be the one who assume the party nomination/general election.

Pretty much the same thing happened back in 2000, Al Gore got about 500.000 more votes than did Bush Jr nationally, however Bush Jr won the election, because he got the votes where it counted, based on the delegate system used in the US.

It's just the first step in the process and in the end the main individuals who will be running for president will be between 2 New Yorkers who knows how to play the games. So everyone just relaxed and enjoy the series with commericals.

Hillary has 156 of 800 superdelagates nationwide some from.
Obama has 50 of 800Superdeligates nationwide non from Iowa.
Edwars has 33 of 800 Superdeligates nationwide none from Iowa.

This is why Hillary has 1 more delagate in the estamate than Obama and Edwards.

The Democratic superdelgates make up 800 of the 2025 delagate votes in
the National Primary held in Colorado.

Hope this helps.

A lot of folk will be mislead into thinking that 200,000 people in Iowa is going to decide who the next president will be but nothing can be further from the truth. My crystal ball tells me that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the U.S.A. and will cause WWIII which will be culminated in 2011 on or about October 19 to 21. Anyway you spin it, the world and all its people are in deep ____!

To answer a couple of questions above:

Seth and Michiel: I don't know the mechanics, but I'd guess the same way that Bush lost the popular election in 2000, but won a majority in the electoral college. It's probably based on precincts, and Clinton won more–Edwards won fewer but by more votes.

Dan: I heard the Dems had 200k, which is much better than in 2004 where they only had 125K. The trouble is that this isn't a primary, it's a caucus, and the amount of effort it takes (2-4 hours, from what I heard) is more than many people will commit to. Plus, you have to be willing to state your vote in public–it's not secret like voting. So you have to be someone who likes to make their opinions public to your friends and neighbors.

Voter turnout is rarely ever that high to begin with in any state.

I am formerly from Iowa and it is not about who necessarily wins but the percentages...which is why the delegates to the IA State Convention will be split almost evenly (Obama, Edwards and Clinton pretty much split all the votes/delegates)...and then of course, what really matters is who has the most national delegate votes, including those of the super delegates...and Hilary is way ahead of all of them so for in total votes for these since more super delegates have pledged in her favor. To learn more just do a web search on super delegates and information should come up.

I don't think your math is right.

Iwould think

Obama 20
Edwards 15
Hillary 10

or something close to that.

Go Hillary! Go Democrats! I am so proud of the number of Iowans that showed up at the caucuses tonight in Iowa. In my small local party precinct meeting alone 250 people! Wow! I do not think that there was anyone in the room that did not agree we have great candidates. Do we care in Iowa? Look at the numbers: yes we care. I watched many folks tonight trudge through snow and ice to get the school to participate. And I can tell you the snow and ice is nasty here tonight and it’s 16 degrees outside. Hillary has the experience, the grit for the work, and the education needed to affect change: gets my vote. Change takes knowing what you're doing, staying the course and an understanding of what is realistic and possible. And just for the record Hillary is not Bill. It would be really wise if the entire course of this election could simply focus on the candidates as presidential candidates without reference to their skin color, gender or religion. When we make our decisions they will be good decisions if we do not put the candidate in a slot based on gender, religion or race. Again, Go Hillary you have my support and that is not because you are a woman, rather I want change and I know change requires experience.

Between 8% and 10% of the population voted. The reason is that the caucusing took place between 7pm and 9pm. This is not a regular election, therefore there are no absentee ballots. If you work the night shift or have small children you are out of luck.

Hillary Clinton actually received more physical votes than John Edwards, but if your candidate did not get 15% , it means they were not viable, and their supporters could go to another candidate. If you look at the entrance pols you will see what I am saying:

Obama 35%
Clinton 27%
Edwards 25%

Horse trading changed the numbers. That explains why Hillary Clinton earned more delegates. CNN cannot give delegates.

Obama took Iowa simply because of the weather. Younger people can handle the weather better. In my precinct, it was the elders that stepped up and made a difference! I applaud all of those who did get out and vote, regardless of the candidate (I'M FOR EDWARDS THOUGH) because it takes EVERYONE to make change. For those who sat on their butts at home doing nothing...nice job!

It infuriates me that people don't celebrate the priviledge that is given to them with the right to vote. While Iowa's caucuses were up extremely, I would have liked to see more INFORMED supporters!

Linda B.

John Darius,

Can you please explain to me what was so wrong with Bill Clinton that having Hillary win would upset you so much? I am not voting for her, but not because her husband was Bill. If I thought she could do for the country what he did, then I would. I am just curious to know why people seem to have so much disdain for a man who had the country in the best shape it had been in in years.

CNN has no credibility – why the delegate discrepancy?

Remember that Iowa is an overwhelmingly white state that is also relatively old. That being said, going for Obama is a major event. The numbers may seem small but a very large number were first time caucus attenders. The excitement for Obama in Iowa could well translate into a national surge making him a very, very viable candidate.

Could someone please explain these results? And what about the 12 superdelegates from Iowa?

Hillary finished 3rd not 2nd and I am a White American Soldier and I really got A good feeling about Barrack Obama he is a good example of what america is based on. Obama's Got my Vote

If any candidate has been denounced by the media, it has been Senator Clinton. For the last two months, I have heard nothing but negative comments from the CNN correspondents regarding Senator Clinton. After tonight’s election, I feel that the media, particularly CNN, wants the American people to believe that Senator Clinton has lost the election. Aren’t we forgetting that Clinton’s major support is coming in the next couple of primaries, especially Super Tuesday?

CNN wants Hillary so it will get better ratings during the whole process. They know she is so polarizing people will watch just because they don't like her.

The count of Hillary with more delegates maybe follows the same math as the presidential election does, where winning the popular vote does not mean winning the election (Remember Gore).

Hillary go home Big G little o Gobama

Thank heavens. Hillary has just one less delegate than Obama. 60% of the superdelegates are backing Clinton, and she will trounce Obama in New Hampshire.

Hillary Rocks!

As a Canadian, I am very for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a steadfast, honest, and experienced politician. If American wants its great times that it had under Bill Clinton than they need to elect her. Alot of Canadians believe that Obama is a very fake person. Even though, the comments of a Canadian do not matter much we are certainly hoping for a Hillary win and I am sure it will happen. After Bill Clinton starts campaigning for her, we will see her numbers increase. Hillary is the best thing that will happen to America in a long time. It is time to reverse the horrible policies of Bush. It is time to get the Canadian and American friendship healed. I await New Hampshire.

Jacob

What's even funnier is how CNN is such a Clinton tool. As soon as they started talking about how inspirational Obama's speech was they abruptly cut to commercial. Come back and all Blitzer can say about 4 times is that this really doesn't mean anything that Clinton can come back, like four times.

What a ruse. I took a year off of TV, when I came back it was so obvious that Fox was all Bush all the time and CNN is really the 'clinton news network'.

I see now that there are over 2 million registered voters in Iowa. How many voted?

I feel like the democrats are not in touch with reality, they are compensating for their short comings in the eyes of the public. Mike Huckabee does not have anything to prove, he has a reputable past and speaks with conviction. I'm not religious but I respect a person who is willing to stand for what they believe in. We need a president who is level headed, who is not seeking to set some kind of precedent, and who doesn't need a celebrity to do his job. Actors and TV celebrities should never be relied on for political opinion, frankly I think it's pathetic for someone to reach to that extent. What could a democrat do, that Mike Huckabee wouldn't? We finally have a good canidate that can cross the red and blue boundary, help get him there!

So this is all Obama got out of it? One measly point over the other candidate? That's not enough to overturn Clinton's advantage. Clinton should just have skipped Iowa. What a waste of time that was for Clinton!

As long as Edward continues to try to reach the blue collar folks and tries to be a traditional democrat. While Hillary is worried more about media bias and rubbing elbows with celebrities who are not in the same tax bracket with traditional democrats or blue collar folks.

What is the number of registered IOWA voters?
What is the number of registered IOWA voters that voted?
Seems like the numbers are under 200,000 that voted, I could be wrong. If this is true why so little of iowans voted. do they care or do they not care and why does this count so much? I could be wrong?

It's fuzzy math. Edwards came in second in terms of state delegates in Iowa but that's not the same as national delegates. In terms of delegates to the national convention, Hillary came in second. CNN isn't showing a bias here, they're showing electoral analysis of the Iowa state delegation.

Please, just not another Clinton...please?

I don't understand why Hillary Clinton will have more delegates than John Edwards when she is in third place.
Also, I have listened to the candidates, read as much as I can find on their projected policies, and I believe Mr. Edwards provides the best hope for the future of this country,

Thank you.

How can CNN be so biased as to predict that Hillary gets more delagates then Edwards when she's a whole percentage point behind him in the results!?! CNN has been so biased against Edwards all night! Preaching Hillary vs. Obama, Hillary vs. Obama, Hillary vs. Obama! Hillary has not been ahead of Edwards at any time tonight! It looks to me like it's going to be Obama vs. Edwards. The people are seeing through Hillary's bs!