Your argument seems to be that money is driving everything… that the issues and visions around those issues are being lost as campaigns dial for more and more dollars.

Then you turn around and say that “maybe Iowa for the good of the party and the nation should forego it's (sic) first-in-the-nation caucus status.”

So, explain to me how Iowa bowing out and conceding to a national or regional primary is going to stop big money from running the show. The way I see it, Iowa and New Hampshire — again, the only two effective states with the organization and proven record of being able to winnow the field — are the only things standing in the way of any given campaign being able to buy the nomination.

I am, however, disgusted by the jumping, jocking and positioning of all the various state caucuses and primary dates at the national level. It cheapens the democratic process by making campaigning and fund-raising fulltime business. I hear more and more Democratic insiders first ask, of a potential candidate's qualifcations, “Is he/she an effective fundraiser?” rather than “Does he/she have a vision, a platform, that captures the voter's imagination?”

And when I've broached the question, maybe Iowa for the good of the party and the nation should forego it's first-in-the-nation caucus status, the answer I hear most is:”But if Iowa does that, think of all the MONEY! the state will lose!”

Please, don't patronize me. It is all about money.

Mark my words: Hillary Clinton, and her well-funded DLC-machine, will be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

On one hand you poo-poo Iowa's first in the nation status and the caucuses… on the other hand you point to one of the detriments of not having Iowa go first. That is, without Iowa and New Hampshire, two proven and well organized states already equipped and educated on running a winnowing process, the nation would most likely be left with the candidate who had the most money to run a completely national campaign.

While all of this jumping and confusion can be disheartening, we should never forget that it is a small price to pay for the incredible privilege of helping the nation look beyond big money to the true issues at stake in America.

I've participated in the Iowa caucus since 1976 but every four years I get a little more disgusted with the process.

I'm going on record, here, that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, I'm voting for Ralph Nader.

“I strongly support the important and traditional role that Iowa and New Hampshire have played in the presidential nominating process for decades — and they will play the same role this time.  My campaign will – as all presidential campaigns should — respect Iowa's special place as the nation's first caucus, and New Hampshire's place as the first primary.”

Supporters of presidential candidate John Edwards are pressing for a Democratic caucus instead of a primary in Michigan. Edwards has strong support among organized labor, whose influence might be magnified in a caucus where the ability to turn out voters willing to attend party meetings is critical.”

http://customwire.ap…