The should Iowa/New Hampshire vote first question

I think this debate question put the candidates on the spot and I didn't like it being asked in the debate. But I do think we need to take a look at the question.

Its time this tradition of privilege for these two states is done away with. How phony is it in the campaign that we keep hearing things like economic empowerment and justice, yet we see continued support for a nomination process that gives preferential treatment to a couple of unrepresentative states.

I hear, but its tradition, well many would argue that rich people not paying their fir share of taxes is tradition too, should we quit trying to change that. Why the hell isn't there more outrage on here about intentionally making the worth of some voters, overwhelmingly white, more important than voters in the rest of the country. Very sad how in 2004, we continue to ask minority voters to take a backseat.

I could care less who votes first but Iowans like their places in the sun since they have so few. They raised holy hell a few years ago when this subject was brought up and almost changed. And why wouldn't they, there is a lot of $$ and media attention to be had by this. Everyone knows this and how would you choose who gets to go first, the most "representative states?". I can't imagine there would be an easy way to change it without dissing the other states so just leave it as it is, better than arguing over who gets to go first.

Why does it matter anyway? Who says the votes of Iowans or New Hampshirians are more important? This is just the freakin' primaries, we are not voting first in the general election. Are people complaining because their candidate didn't do well in Iowa or New Hampshire? Then their candidate didn't represent well there whoo wee. No one told Gephardt he had to drp out, he did that on his own. He didn't have to spend all those resources here either (Look at Lieberman and Clark and they are still "in it") he did it thinking it for the better. If a candidate is going to make choices on his career based on the voting actions of two Unrepresentative states then that's their own fault.

As far as who gets to go first, again I don't care but am sure the republic has more pressing concerns.

I agree. I think we should add SCarolina as a stand alone caucus state, or primary, whatever they want. It's not right that these two states have such a huge influence on the candidate.

I don't think South Carolina should be added as a caucus state, are you advocating not allowing overseas military and poor people that have to work second shift not be part of the process. A caucus is not an inclusive process. Everyone seems excited that 25% of registered Democrats participated in the Iowa caucus. How horrible to advocate a process where 25% participation is praised. And all we don't need is another stand alone primary, we need to quit this preference BS. Have a rotation and more than one state at a time.

I find it interesting that the powers that be had a hissy fit when D.C. decided to hold their primary first and shame on the candidates who backed out. Why shame on them, because by bowing to the Democrat leadership, the candidates that backed out said "yep, I'm basically agreeing that we have to start out the vote in an essentially all-white state."

I may not like Dean too much, but I respect his staying on the D.C. ballot, and I'm ashamed my candidate did not.

I'd prefer a rotation system, at the least. I would also like to hear proposals for making the system more truly democratic. It's simply got too many warts right now.

I love the fact that nearly every single Iowan involved in the caucuses had MET the candidates face to face. Same goes in NH. The early caucuses/primaries prevent the election from becoming entirely media driven.

I could live with a rotating event, but a California primary would be nearly entirely media driven and would not let voters get a chance to meet the candidates because the state is simply too large.

I understand your wanting the voters to meet the candidates before they vote. But what you're saying is that small states should always go first. I think someone/i.e. party chairman in Iowa or New Hampshire should think about the Ask Not quote from JFK and say "you know we feel that it is important for all voters to be treated equally in this country" and in doing so suggest that a rotation program be put in place.

Right now it seems like the status quo, i.e. 98% white voter populations getting to decide and drive the process, is great for many. Why didn't Al Sharpton say something at least in the debate about this or Dennis K, they won't win New Hampshire, so why not speak out for voter equality.