Comment: Agree

They've done that before.

When Bob Dole won Iowa in 1988, it didn't mean anything. When Bill Clinton came in 5th place in Iowa, it didn't mean anything.

Yet when John Kerry won Iowa -- it meant everything (grassroots candidate Howard Dean was totally finished off). When Obama won Iowa, then Hillary was "on the ropes". When John McCain won New Hampshire in 2000 it didn't mean anything, but it meant absolutely everything in 2008 (despite him losing Iowa). When Paul Tsongas won New Hampshire in 1992, it meant nothing, etc., etc.

So they play these things anyway they feel like it. But in Ron Paul's case, the reason why Iowa means so much is that it gives him the bonifides to get voters to New Hampshire to vote for him too, and put him over then top and win there. It then gets very, very hard to ignore someone who has won both Iowa and New Hampshire.

At that point, Ron Paul could become an unstoppable juggernaut.