Or should the title be "Should Hillary Have Listened to Henry? "?  

I believe that's known as a "brain fart." :)

why quote him??

...I think he's a pretty astute political analyst when he puts on his more objective "hat."

I'd just like to say, "I agree with Bob Novak."  How often does a Democrat get to say that?

Edwards is going to lead in Iowa ;-)

Whoever comes in third in Iowa is toast.  If Senator Clinton comes in third, she'll be significantly weakened in New Hampshire, and if she doesn't win there, her campaign is on the rocks.  If Obama comes in third in Iowa he'll be banking it all on New Hampshire, where he's the underdog.  If Edwards doesn't win Iowa, his new home state, I really don't see his campaign continuing at all.

Are Democratic Primary voters that simple?  Do people follow the Momentum Investing Strategy when selecting a presidential candidate?  As a Democratic Primary voter, am I supposed to think: "Oh! Hillary got third in Iowa, guess I better vote for Obama."?  Are primary voters that irrational?

This logic seems to suggest a limited set of binary outcomes.  I think that is an oversimplification especially given the name recognition of all three candidates and the vast sums of money that two of them sit on.  Assuming that Iowa and New Hampshire are all important leaves out a huge range of possibilities on our way to Super Tuesday.  The vast amount of money raised for the primaries means that at least two campaign can continue to challenge one another in all 50 states.  

"If Edwards doesn't win Iowa, his new home state, I really don't see his campaign continuing at all."
I disagree.  In this case, either Clinton or Obama would most likely become the nominee.  However, I think you are wrong though by saying you don't see his campaign continuing at all.  The top three Dems are in the race until at least February 6th.  Also, I think Novak has the top two positions (for both parties) backwards.  I predict Edwards and Huckabee will win Iowa.

But remember Edwards has limited money and resources and is also relying on public financing.  I think if he comes in third tomorrow he is in serious trouble.  I still think he will win so this is propably all talk anways :-p.  

I just can't see young voters all of a sudden turning out en masse to propel Obama to victory.

As much as I would like to see young voters turn up at the caucus, history shows that they won't.

That is why I believe Novak almost got it right.  Prior to Iowa, Howard Dean had raised $50 million - shattering records.  He then came in third in the primaries, shattering ear drums ;-)

OK, cheap shot against Dean.  But seriously, neither Dean- I mean Obama, Edwards, or Clinton have this thing in the bag.  And they need to make sure the sound guy has the mikes tuned prior to any speeches ;-)

The more I think about it, my guess is that it will be Edwards, Clinton, and then Obama.  If Obama comes in third, the media will instantly compare him to Dean and it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Of course if I am wrong and Edwards comes in third, it's probably over for him.  He needs a strong second to survive.

because young people didn't turn out - actually they turned out in record numbers in Iowa in 2004 for John Kerry, John Edwards and Dean.  Dean lost Iowa because he became THE candidate and Gephardt pulled the murder-suicide to take him down.

Two individuals have finished third or worse in Iowa and gone on to win both their party's nomination and the general election:

--Bill Clinton in 1992

--George H.W. Bush in 1988

Obviously coming in third would not be her preference, but it would hardly be fatal, especially when you consider her lead in several other states.  I say all of this as an Obama supporter.  Coming in third in Iowa would hurt Clinton, but not stop her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

that was back in the day where a candidate who had a poor finish had time to fix issues and couldn't be crushed by the momentum a winning candidate had.  The dates were so spread out back then, today, they are one right after another.

One could make the argument that there isn't time for a defeat to sink in.  She's ahead by twenty points in some big states: that lead won't evaporate overnight.  If Obama or Edwards win tomorrow it will still take time for them to catch Clinton in California, New York, and the other big states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...

Because the caucuses, held in the early evening, do not allow absentee voting, they tend to leave out nearly entire categories of voters: the infirm, soldiers on active duty, medical personnel who cannot leave their patients, parents who do not have baby sitters, restaurant employees on the dinner shift, and many others who work in retail, at gas stations and in other jobs that require evening duty.

As in years past, voters must present themselves in person, at a specified hour, and stay for as long as two. And if these caucuses are anything like prior ones, only a tiny percentage of Iowans will participate.

Fortunately for the top three Democratic candidates, they'll have the money to battle on in other states.

I've always wondered why two states that collectively make up less then 1% of the population, demographically have little in common with most of the US, and are otherwise forgotten for three out of four years get so much a say in who should lead the most powerful nation on the planet.  Kind of scary.

In a tiny state that is virtually all white and mostly rural, there is a caucus system where people must brave harsh winter weather, stay for up to two hours at night and publicly declare their support for a candidate.

It excludes those traveling out of the country and Iraqi veterans because they can't vote absentee ballot as in a primary.  It also excludes single parents, especially with sick children, which mostly means women.  It also excludes those working night shifts, mostly nurses, waiters, and blue collar factory workers on night shifts.  In other words, it is extremely difficult for many ordinary people to participate.

And to add insult to injury, it scorns a secret ballot which is the cornerstone of a true democracy.

It's time to dethrone Iowa from its role as first in the nation aribter of presidential politics.

Unless the unthinkable happens (one of the top 3 wins by some extraordinary amount, or falls into a threshing machine), Friday will bring us the same thing we have today - three candidates who appear to have garnered equal amounts of support amongst a tiny and unrepresentative slice of the American public.

Well, that and considerably richer campaign consultants and happy local television salesmen.

I think we'd be better off ignoring Iowa and sapping it of the attention it needs to sustain that circus.

If HRC gets less than 25% Mike Henry will have been proven correct