In addition to Obama, Edwards was certainly a winner. Even if his 2nd place finish was more due to Clinton losing votes, he has established his viability, in spite of having much less $ to spend. Voters who would lean to Edwards but be swayed if he was not viable will be encouraged.

Sent by Jonathan Friedman | 7:41 AM ET | 01-04-2008

As hard as it is to admit, I was happy to see Huckabee take Iowa and slam Romney because it provides an inkling of hope that money won't be the deciding factor in November. On the democrat side, I was surprised and pleased to see Clinton come in third, again showing the public that no one candidate is invincible. I hope that what happened in Iowa will motivate more people to become involved over the next several months.

Sent by Will | 8:16 AM ET | 01-04-2008

I cannot believe what happened here! We are going to see in the election of this year yet another failure of the American people to take in to consideration experience and intelligence to pick their canidate. The democrats are going to be this years Republicans if we elect any of the three front runners to the white house! George Bush had never been over seas before he weas president and we are going to elect someone who has less than one term as a Senator? This is CRAZY! MOney rules this world! By the way I am not crazy just outraged!

Sent by Jason Simms | 10:10 AM ET | 01-04-2008

Can Barack Obama be compared to Jimmy Carter who was elected when we needed a person who wanted to change everything and make politics better? Look what happened during those years.
Can Mike Huckabee be compared to George W. Bush with his Christian stance? Look what we got with George W. Bush. Joe Biden has such experience and can't get the momentum needed. It's all so sad...

Sent by Judy Stearns | 10:46 AM ET | 01-04-2008

First of all, I don't think 200,000 people in Iowa should have this much power in a national election. Having said that, I think the Iowa caucuses show how unfortunately powerful religion is in the Republican party, which helped Huckabee and hurt Romney. I think it shows that Democrats doubt Hillary can win a national election. Obama and Huckabee brought in a lot of new voters under 30, so I'm happy that the young people actually showed up. I hope this is a trend.

Lastly, just to piggyback on what Jason said... most of the people elected to Congress are wealthy lawyers. Most Americans say they dislike lawyers and politicians... so wouldn't it be better to have a well-educated person with less experience as a politician and/or lawyer? Someone who is less connected to the lobby groups in Washington? We have to ask ourselves what kind of experience is necessary to run our country. I mean that's why Presidents have advisers... one person cannot have enough experience to cover all aspects of being President. If experience was important to Americans than Richardson would be a leading Democratic candidate. Clearly, there are other factors involved.

Sent by April | 10:56 AM ET | 01-04-2008

I'm surprised that more hasn't been said about Dr. Paul getting double-digit support in such a socially-conservative state. If he did that well in Iowa, what will happen in New Hampshire. These are indeed exciting times.

Sent by James McCrackan | 11:34 AM ET | 01-04-2008

Hard to be shocked about Obama: he was focusing intensely on the twenty-something,facebook demographic, a demographic (b/c of lack of home phones and an assumption they are apathetic) largely ignored by polls.
As for experience, i.e.- being cultivated in the ways of the corrupt swamp that is Washington D.C. - i prefer my leaders without it, thank you.

Sent by kim garbow | 1:14 PM ET | 01-04-2008

When anyone says that a vote against Romney shows that Iowans "cant be bought" it makes me livid. Its an insult to the integrity and intelligence of the many people who support Romney as the best candidate. Romney wouldnt have had to spend such an enormous amount of money in Iowa had the media given him some approximation of fair coverage.

Get over quibbling about the man's mis-statements and whether or not he is genuine about his "changes". His position is what it is, and anyone with 5 minutes of time can look at his stellar record and see that he's the best leader in the bunch, and the best candidate.

Seriously, naysayers, take a break from the negative rhetoric and have a serious look at his positions on his site.

His success is NOT about the money.

Sent by CoachNY | 2:30 PM ET | 01-04-2008

Hey this is for Coach NY Do you think we should put a person in the white house that has been apart of a chruch that Black people would not be welcome or even considerd people. Yes it all changed in the 70's but only for tax reasons. Yes he look's the part for you but jet black hair is really all he has.

Sent by Robyn Gardenhire | 7:42 PM ET | 01-04-2008

Want to know what happened in Iowa? Just ask me. First the Democrats: Who cares? The top three are all media-anointed defenders of the status quo. All style, no substance. Their main claim to fame is that they are NOT George Bush (who is justly vilified by all patriotic Americans with a double digit IQ).
Next the Republicans: Here there is some interest since they have the only true statesman in the running, Ron Paul. All substance, no style. A man of impeccable integrity, courageous, humble, and with the intelligence to see through the political platitudes that seem to blind his opponents. He, and his commitment to personal liberty, have the fatal flaw of being a threat to the Industrial-Military complex, One-World neofascism and its quasi-religion, political correctness. Mike Huckabee is a media creation designed as the Romney-killer. He may continue to have success or, more likely, will pass the baton to Rudy or John McCain who are the true darlings of the establishment. Fred Thompson is an empty suit with enough "Aw shucks" charm and name recognition to suck votes from real candidates, giving the media more excuses to marginalize Ron Paul. Don't worry, when he is no longer needed he will obediently roll over and play dead (watch carefully because it will be hard to tell the difference). I know all of this is pretty obvious, at least to Ron Paul supporters, but here is the scoop: Not all of the Non-Paul Republicans are the same! Mitt Romney is no Ron Paul, but he also is not one of THEM. How do I know? Because he is the only one of the front-runners, in either party, who has a REAL answer to illegal immigration. Too many Ron Paul supporters have been wasting their breath attacking Mitt, simply because he was ahead in the polls. They did not understand that he was tolerated only because THEY knew he could be taken out at anytime by playing the Mormon card.
I hope this cleared things up for you.

Sent by John Bowery | 8:02 PM ET | 01-04-2008

What happens to the Ron Paul supporters? They become inspired by this amazing victory! Dr. Paul pulled in 10%. That's a staggering increase from the virtual 0% he had at the beginning of the year. Iowa might not mean much, but if Paul can pull 10% of the 10% that showed up for an Iowa caucus, he certainly has the potential to do well in the national arena.

Sent by J. Robertson | 3:06 AM ET | 01-07-2008

Ron Paul gets 10% about three what Mr. 9/11 got and who is kick out of the debate? Well, who expect fairness or justice from Republicans?

Sent by John Jefferson | 2:48 AM ET | 01-08-2008