Should Iowa and New Hampshire be first?

This question has been debated for some time with no definitive answer emerging. There are some advantages and disadvantages. I personally like these states going early for a few reasons. I have to admit to a bias in terms of Iowa since I grew up there. More importantly, both states are relatively low in population so the candidates and people can get to know each other at least a little bit. The candidates are forced to define themselves in ways they will not later in the big state primaries. This is especially true with the heavy front loading of the primaries for both the Democrats and Republicans. After the first several states, citizens in most states will only receive a TV ad blitz with candidates spending little or no time in the state. Another positive is that Iowa leans conservative and I think New Hampshire leans liberal. A third benefit is that volunteers from all over the nation gain experience working in these states for the candidates they support. On the down side, both states are rural in nature and primarily Causcasian in race/ethnicity. Demographically, they do not mirror the nation as a whole. I think the larger question is whether any two states should have such a disproportionate influence on the nomination process. This problem might be unavoidable given the prevalence of media today. Whichever states go first, they will exert an exaggerated influence.

Paul