The benefit Iowans have had is that we have had every opportunity to really know the candidates and thoroughly understand how they stand on issues. Other states do not necessarily have that opportunity. Senator Barack Obama visited many small towns in Iowa and held many town meetings with question and answer sessions. I believe in his case, to know him is to love him. It is evident he runs a grassroots funded campaign and is a candidate of the people.

Thanks for your comments Jessica. I take your point that Iowa and New Hampshire help voters focus on the campaigns and maybe to help them look more closely at those who do well in the early states. But I also think that it's a bad idea to give too much weight to what happens in the early states to the point where the contest is effectively declared over by the media, rather than the voters by virtue of their participation.

You're pointing out that New Hampshire and Iowa represent a grand total of around 1.5% of the American population....just remember that not nearly all Americans votes, so it would have made more sense to figure those percentages based on how many Americans have voted in previous elections. And that would figure around 3.5 - 4%.

And I think that a lot of people still don't have any idea who they should vote for, and these caucuses have great influential power to sway the rest of us...sure some of us are already set in our voting ways (ahem...Obama...), but there's still quite a few Americans open to suggestion.

Some great comments, all. Thanks for sharing. I did want to pick up on Aegina's comment suggesting a national primary (which, on some level, the Feb. 5th primary with 22 states is a mini-version of that). I'd be concerned that with one single national primary, the candidates wouldn't be forced to truly interact with voters, as they do in Iowa and New Hampshire. There's an expectation in both those states that candidates will not only show up, but that they will subject themselves to endless coffees at people's homes, questions about their views and real interaction. Of course, this is doable in smaller states, and less so in say, California or New York. If it was all on one day, we might be stuck with endless television ads and direct mail with no true ability to interact with and get a sense for these candidates and where they stand.

That said, there's no question that we need to find a way to allow more voters to have a say before nominees are coronated.

IN NH Billary and Obama tied with 9 delegates each. Most of Billary's prefer to vote for her husband. That is not a win.
I (55 year old whitewoman) will vote God-willing for Barack Obama.
There is a plutocratic chasm between the cosseted comfortable winners and increasingly desperate and disenfranchised losers in this world.

The besieged middle class has turned blindly against the struggling poor and working classes, and supported, in the USA, the despicable Billary Clinton welfare "reform" of 1996 (ie total capitulation to the Right wing in shredding the USA'a meager social safety net ). The Billaries then profiteered their celebrity status into ten million dollars a year in personal income while substituting grandstanding showmanship in place of authentic leadership to restore and refine our once safe, sane and stable social democracy.

We must not fall for the phony gender over experience argument.Or the "entitlement" argument posited by a self-aggrandizdysfunctional political family.

Here is a link to washington Post article track record, showing Obama's experience in uniting for a common good by persuading others to transcend partisan feuding to create workable solutions for all Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"Judge him by his laws"
Let us elect a practical idealist who is not a jaded, ruthless exploiter but an avater for social good and a born leader: OBAMA

Point taken, Nancy -- there are so many things to blame on the media, it's sometimes hard to keep track! Personally, I've never understood why we can't have one nationwide primary on one given day -- why put the candidates and ourselves through this grueling circus? I've often missed the opportunity to vote for my first-choice candidate because he or she had dropped out of the race by the time my primary rolled around. Plus, there could be some big surprises in the general election if we adopted a single primary date and let the winners run against each other.

Blame the media if you wish for declaring winners before all the votes are in... but please don't blame New Hampshire and Iowa for our little time in the spotlight. Come November, the media will be declaring a winner before my little town has finished counting our paper ballots, based on exit polls in California. If any changes should be made in the primary schedule, we should allow the other small states the same chance for an early look and vote that NH and IA enjoy. Let the big states like NY and CA wait until March or April for their primaries. (and yes, I voted today.)

Yea!!Heather. I only hope a vast majority of people feel as you. I for one do not want the media deciding who is going to be president, and that's what is happening.

At least these states have a say. I'm in Pennsylvania. Our primary does not count towards who gets to run as a Party representative, even though we vote for who we would have wanted.

Thank you for your excellent observations. The corporate media coverage of these elections is a travesty. As far as the media is concerned, there are only three candidates on each side. What have we heard from Bill Richardson or Ron Paul. Denis Kucinich was not included in the ABC/Facebook debates. These people and about 15 more one each side have valid points to make about issues that concern us all. Let's hear them all, media. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings and she's not even warming up.