The voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have done America a favor.

In the past week, voters in two small states have kicked off the 2008 presidential campaign — while at the same time Iowans rejected a coronation, and New Hampshire voters reminded everyone that opinion polls can be wrong and that the race should remain competitive.

Tuesday's New Hampshire win by Sen. Hillary Clinton slowed the tidal wave being ridden by the charismatic Sen. Barack Obama since his Iowa upset. After Obama's surprising victory in Iowa, there was growing speculation that Obama might be unstoppable and that Clinton was done.

But this week, New Hampshire voters said, "Not so fast." Despite polls, even those conducted by Clinton's own team, predicting Obama would cruise to an easy win in New Hampshire, voters gave the edge to Clinton.

Tuesday night's surprising results might have been a product of the Granite State's maverick reputation and a desire to prove the polls and pundits wrong. Or, it might have been a sympathetic response to an emotional moment on the campaign trail when Clinton's eye's welled up as she talked about how difficult the process is and how much passion she has for seeing Americans' current troubles reversed.

Whatever the reason behind the New Hampshire turnaround, the results are good for the nation. The contest for each party's presidential nomination will continue. And that's important, because voters need to get a good, long look at whoever winds up being the eventual party standard-bearers.

For most of last year, Clinton was draped in the aura of inevitability, something she and her campaign did little to dispel leading up to the Iowa caucuses. But when Obama won Iowa, the Clinton campaign had to adjust.

Some of the changes, including allowing the candidate to reveal her humanity, appear to have been effective — it is thought to be a reason behind her doing particularly well with female voters in New Hampshire. Other changes, including a string of negative comments about Obama from former President Bill Clinton, were widely criticized.

But despite all the attention focused on the first-in-the-nation contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, the vast majority of Americans have yet to be heard regarding their preferences. Preventing an early winner from running away with the nomination allows more of the country to play a role, and allows more time to critique the candidates. This was the valid point made by former Sen. John Edwards in his speech following his third-place finish in New Hampshire, in which he vowed to continue his populist effort all the way to the Democratic convention.

Despite Iowa and New Hampshire having small populations and not representing the diversity of much of the rest of America, these two states serve a valuable role in the election process. Campaigning in such small states is described as retail, with candidates meeting voters face to face in diners, town halls, high school gyms, homes and on street corners. And, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire take their responsibilities seriously — they listen carefully and ask questions. Sadly, the same cannot be said for much of the rest of America.

Now that the campaigns move on to larger states, the campaigns will shift into what can be described as a wholesale mode, with personal appearances taking a subordinate role to television advertising. In Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates with less money can compete, but once the race moves to larger states where expensive television advertising is needed to reach the voters, the wealthier campaigns have a significant advantage.

Iowa and New Hampshire have swept away most second-tier candidates, but among the leaders it is wide open.

On the Republican side, the results in the early contests were similar, though less dramatic. Iowans lifted the campaign of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, while voters in New Hampshire chose Sen. John McCain, just as they did in 2004. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani did not put much effort into those states, and instead has been concentrating his efforts in larger states such as Florida.

As the campaign moves forward, voters should look beyond polls and the surface appeal of personality to examine the candidates' records and try to judge their potential for leadership. And despite the emotional appeal of change, a mantra coined by Obama and now heard from all candidates, voters should ask for specifics on issues — about what each candidate would change and how he or she would do it.

For both parties, the race remains competitive. And for America, that is much better than any candidate locking up the nomination early in the process.

Thanks, New Hampshire.