And as such, the election becomes moot. The Establishment gets their man, no matter which side wins.

All this bruhaha over 7 measley electoral votes. Iowa is a media circus constructed by and for the media/PR firms. It's the first showcase of the candidate's mettle. It's the trotting out of the horses so we can see who can win the dog and pony show.

The only good thing about this circus is the monetary shot in the arm the local restaurants and hotels get from the rich media and PR types. PR folks get paid whether the candidate wins or loses, and you know they'aren't making minimum wage!

I am disappointed but not suprised that Kucinich didn't get anything and has been so blatantly shut out by the media.

As exclusionary as the Iowa Caucuses were (no absentee ballots, must have transportation, etc.), they will have been of value if they help convince Rudolf Giuliani that America doesn't want his kind of blustering chauvinism and continually threatening posture. Maybe there is some hope that the American people are beginning to realize that he represents a continuance of the programs the political criminals currently in power, taking us ever further down the road to dishonor and disaster.

Kinda sad. Those are really pitiful numbers for Dodd, Biden, and Richardson. If you don't have the media (local and otherwise) on your side, forget it. Still, should one state have this much power? Even NH, more representative of the country than Iowa, should not have the exclusive privilege of holding the first primary. Look at where it's gotten us. I love politics but am already sick to death of the whole thing. (Just pick someone and shut up!) Being a neighbor of NH (where most people don't even answer their phones anymore and, today, hundreds of Edwards signs are literally blanketing the snow banks in southern NH) means I get to see it all up close - but without the opportunity to vote until it's already been decided. Either we alternate regional primaries or - my preference - the state with the highest turnout in the prior presidential election gets to go first.

Actually, if this was a real democracy, we wouldn't have state-by-state primaries.

what a loss for the country. we need senator biden.

i'm so angry at iowa's system. thanks to iowa dems' love for complexity, the whole second tier of democrats were basically wiped out. what a waste.

it figures it's the democrats with the convoluted system.

it looks as if the republicans had followed it, only huckabee and romney would have survived (thompson, mccain, paul and guiliani all were less than 15%). i think that today the gop has a much clearer picture of its candidates' standings than the dems do. the caucus should give us an idea how the candidates are faring, not be make-or-break.

grr.

I'm fascinated that the MSM has been able to completely ignore John Edwards' second place win in Iowa.

The Times, and even the analysis of Obama's win (which I'm very happy about) on Salon, really focus on the Hillary/Obama show. Is it just that they're the interesting ones, the ones everyone wants to see duke it out?

John Edwards beat Democratic inevitability Hillary! That's a headline in itself--but the New York Times gives Edwards a one line paragraph and passing mention throughout the article about what Obama's win and Hillary's loss means. What's going on? There are three serious contenders for president here.

I'm also sorry to see that Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, both of whom could be really effective leaders, out of the race.

On to New Hampshire!

I am beyond upset that Biden dropped out. He was the only one who would have been able to handily beat any of the Republicans in the general election. I say this because if anyone other than John McCain gets the nod on the Republican side, there will be a third party candidate. You can talk about hope and change until your face turns blue, but then there better be some substance behind it. So far, I haven't seen much from the "frontrunners." If it's between a mediocre Republican and a keep-hope-alive Democrat, someone could easily step in and pick up the Independent vote.

Incidentially, did we need someone to "give us hope again?" I was not aware of this hope deficit. I think what we need is not hope, but practical, thoughtful, intelligent policy.

I looked up the election results from 2000 and 2004 and was surprised by what I found.

(Numbers are rounded)

2000: GORE

Bush: 634,000

Gore: 638,500

Buchanan: 5,000

2004: BUSH

Bush: 752,000

Kerry: 742,000

Nader: 6,000

So, while it is derided as lillywhite and non-representative, Iowa has switched back and forth from the R to the D column and back again over and over -- and not as a bellweather since they have often voted against the eventual winner (Dukakis, Ford, Gore, Nixon over Kennedy).

But, 2004 was a historic turnout and 2008 seems to show voter mobilization of a different order of magnitude. I think this shows rather than just being angry, people are motivated for change. The fact that so many more people cuacused with the Dems also seems like a good sign.

I am cautiously optimistic while reminded myself of the Dems' consistent ability to lose ass-kicking contests to one legged men.

"In a written statement, Richardson skips right over the fact that he's 30 points behind the three front-runners to declare himself part of the 'final four.'"

To be fair, he actually brought in somewhere around 7% of the vote initially (based on entrance polls), but because of the "change your mind" option for non-viable (<15% vote) candidates, in the end a large portion of his supporters thought it would be a better idea to make their vote useful and throw in with a viable candidate. So he's probably not a great number 4, but I guess getting more votes than Mike Gravel is worth something?

Biden, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Hunter,. . .Giuliani: carrion.

The rest carry on.

We should not be surprised to see Hillary descending considering her ambiguous position on the one issue that has finally galvanized most of this country: The Neocon War in Iraq. She apologized for having voted for the war against Iraq when Bush started it and then amazingly voted to essentially support another of his delusions: a war with Iran. After viewing a qualified psychotic, Rev. Hagee, recently and listening to him expound on the joys of a final war he is eagerly awaiting which will catapult him and his ilk into heaven I wonder why this issue is not more openly reported by our mainstream media? Hagee's frequent trips to Israel where he dumps a million dollars on each visit is overlooked even when people like Senator Lieberman speak to Hagee's followers.