I guess I have to post something about the Iowa caucus, so here it is. Truth be told, Larry Sabato said all that I have been thinking about this ridiculous caucus. The highpoints:
It’s just that (1) the caucuses this year are way too early; (2) the caucuses and the state are unrepresentative of the broader electorate; and (3) the rules of the caucuses raise real questions about fairness.
Reason enough, in my opinion, to ignore Iowa. And New Hampshire, too.
The process needs to change, folks.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Amen.
Agreed. If people reallt think that America wants another Arkansas Gov, especially a pastor for President, they are nuts.
For the Dem side, however, it played out as it should… With Hillary in 3rd.
Truth be told I WANT her to win the nom. Just like I would prefer playing basketball against a midget… or little person, or whatever the hell I am supposed to call them this week.
Either way, she is the easiest to beat… Well maybe not THE easiest. Edwards is pretty F-ing nuts.
Yup. Nothin’ means nothin’ ’till you get to a couple of southern, western, and BIGGER northeastern, and southwestern states. And maybe a few more midwestern ones.
Did I just describe the whole country? OK, apologies to Alaska and Hawai’i.
VA Displaced, I respectfully disagree. Nothing is real until the rest of the Midwest is counted 🙂
I find it hilarious that the Democrats finished in exactly the REVERSE order of their qualifications. Obama has the LEAST experience, then Edwards and Clinton, and Richardson has by far the most.
Form over substance.
Wheel, you are correct. The midwest will rule the world and Nebraska will be the seat of power!!!! (emoticon)
Mouse, I didn’t even notice that. But what about Kucinich?
Do any of them (except Richardson) have any experience at all to demonstrate that they can run a large organization? Democratic voters might as well vote only on “form” or ideology or likeability or anything other than experience, b/c experience won’t be a winning issue for Obama, Edwards, or Clinton in the general election against any of the likely GOP nominees.
So Hillary goes down hard…and the Clinton supporters want to blame the rules? LOL!
I’m an Obama supporter, and I think the rules are ridiculous. LOL on that one.
I think Obama’s speech was great, the strongest he’s been in months. I also really appreciate the gracious tone Hillary brought in her speech when she reminded us up front that this isn’t just a great day to be Barack Obama or John Edwards of Hillary Clinton. This is a great day to be a Democrat and an American.
I wish some of my fellow Obama supporters could remember to be so gracious.
va displaced: What about Kucinich? Did he even show up on the radar screen in Iowa? He does have more experience than the top three candidates.
The process needs to change, folks.
Well said, so what do we do?
What do we do? One possible answer is regional primaries.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Weighting delegates by date would be good as an alternative.
“I think Obama’s speech was great, ”
That´s the problem. Senators do speeches all the time, and political junkies and pundits love speeches. That´s why usually Senators began primaries as favorites, and that´s why they usually lose the primaries and the election.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/mark-shields/-americans-don-t-promote-senators-to-the-white-house.html
No one has explained to us what kind of administration a Obama Administration would be. No one knows what kind of people he would put in his cabinet. But that´s ok, since he does great speeches.
And these years primaries are horrible. In the Democratic side it reminds me of 1984 Primaries(There is even a Mondale and a Gary Hart) and on the Republican Side a Serial Liar and a Religious Fanatic that makes Ads with Chuck Norris are running for the nomination…
Ah, Mouse, you are correct. Those with the most time in government were at the bottom, especially as compared to the top three.