SEND TO A FRIEND

|

PRINT ARTICLE

|

Put the Brakes on Iowa & New Hampshire

I was listening to Washington Post reporter Dan Balz on NBC's Meet the Press two weeks ago, analyzing challenges Hillary Rodham Clinton might face in the Iowa caucuses early next year.

His thesis was that while she enjoys a massive national poll lead, an uphill climb awaits her in Iowa, where perennial national third-placer John Edwards has made frequent visits and polls quite well.

The reason? "She has no history there," he said, pointing out that Bill Clinton bypassed the state during his 1992 campaign ascendancy because its own U.S. senator, Tom Harkin, was running.

Something inside me snapped.

I have long coped with the oddity of two sparsely populated states - Iowa and New Hampshire - wielding so much power in the presidential nominating process. I have, in fact, enjoyed covering the New Hampshire primary over the years, slogging through snowy idyllic towns every fourth January, tracking the embryonic fates of dozens of Republican and Democrat hopefuls.

But what occurred to me as I listened to Mr. Balz's comments was that he had a good point. Mrs. Clinton may indeed face an obstacle three months from now because her husband - 16 years ago - did not attend enough debates in Des Moines, town meetings in Templeton or pancake breakfasts in Plainfield.

This insanity must stop. It's too late for 2008, but by the time we get to 2012, I hope we can arrive at a primary schedule that affords some clout to states with more than five congressional districts.

The charm is gone. I am now overtly annoyed by every front-runner spending nearly every free moment and every free dollar in states that barely add up to 1 percent of America's population.

I am tired of watching endless interviews with small-town journalists who might get face time with Mrs. Clinton or Rudy Giuliani 10 times a month, while countless counterparts in America's major cities are stiffed.

(This is not primarily personal sour grapes. I have spoken with many candidates at this stage of an election cycle, but it isn't nearly often enough, and I get the feeling that they are always in a rush to wrap things up so they can get on the horn with Joe Bob from the Ottumwa Courier.)

They do this because victories in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries bring a sprinkle of magic fairy dust that somehow anoints the victors with some ill-defined aura of worthiness.

This is why Mr. Edwards and his Republican third-place counterpart, Mitt Romney, cannot be counted out. While nearly 90 percent of America expresses interest in their rivals, the turf they have turned from Concord to Council Bluffs pays big dividends.

As well it should - in those states. If all that time and money earns a candidate their combined 11 electoral votes on Nov. 4, 2008, hooray for all involved.

And nothing against Mr. Edwards or Mr. Romney, both worthy candidates. But can I be excused for thinking my primary vote - cast in one of America's most populous metro areas in one of its most populous states - should count as much as the expressed will of the good folk of the 30th- and 41st-ranked states?

Changing this will prove nearly impossible. Look at Florida, where Democrats had the nerve to suggest that a voter in Miami, Tampa or Jacksonville deserves as much influence as a Portsmouth lobster fisherman. The prospect of moving Florida's primary to an earlier date so enraged national party leaders that they leveled the threat of not seating the state's delegation at the national convention.

None of this is fixable by a national show of hands. It is an oligarchy of ivory-tower party power brokers - Republican and Democrat - who deny a meaningful primary vote to the millions who live in Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states where any college football stadium can hold the number of voters who probably will determine the 2008 nominees on a few snowy days in January.

I don't mind the early start to the 2008 race - its many months provide plenty of opportunities to learn what we might like or dislike about those who would be president. But for so few people to dictate the complexion of the race in the comparative blink of an eye that is the Iowa-New Hampshire vote dishonors the vast marketplace of voters across America who deserve to be heard.

---

Sphere: Related Content

|

Email

|

Print

|

---

Related Topics: election 2008 | iowa | new hampshire |

Sponsored Links