Okay and what about the rest of us?

I realize this may come off as pissy, but when reading this article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post, this statement really bothered me:

Advocates for the two states insist that the small size of Iowa and New Hampshire forces politicians to meet and greet potential voters in person rather than via 30-second television commercials -- an experience that is a true test of their candidate skills. Supporters of the primacy of New Hampshire and Iowa insist that voters in their states take their responsibility quite seriously, paying close attention to the minutiae of campaigns and candidates.

Personally I resent the fact that these other smaller states have such a large impact on how the process works. Yes, I'm still irritated at Howard Dean dropping out before Ohio when in reality, just because these other states wanted John Kerry didn't mean the rest of us did. I realize they all want the money and the extra media attention but seriously, why not create a system where it is done in a rotating fashion with 25 being first drawn by some form of lottery and then the next presidential cycle have the next 25 being drawn by some form of lottery. At least that would more equitably distribute the "importance" and also give each State a chance to have that sort of attention rather than the current system where they squabble over who will be the "first". Yes, I know, I am proposing something that would actually be fair, so of course it will never happen...

:-)