Jeff Greenfield is senior analyst for CNN. He will provide weekly, Web-exclusive analysis during Election 2000.

Jeff Greenfield: A 'reasonably reasonable' primary process

By Jeff Greenfield/CNN

February 16, 2000
Web posted at: 12:26 a.m. EST (0526 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- You know the story of the stereotypical Jewish mother: she gives her son a red shirt and a blue shirt, and a few days later, he shows up proudly wearing the red shirt.

"What's the matter?" the mother says. "You didn't like the other one?"

This is the way political observers regard the way we choose our presidential nominees -- no matter what process that may involve.

Decades ago, when nominees were picked at conventions by political pros, writers like Frank Kent argued that the process shut out the average American citizen. When primaries began to dominate the process, and the season ran from March to June, hands were wrung and garments were rent over the agonizing length of the season.

This year, when big states like Ohio, New York, and California moved their dates up, critics warned that early states like Iowa and New Hampshire would become even more important, providing unstoppable momentum to the winners, and rendering the big states irrelevant. And every four years, somebody runs a despairing view of whatever the system is, under the headline: "Is This Any Way to Pick a President?"

Well, guess what? If you take a look at the Republican contest, it just may turn out that the process has become -- dare I say this -- reasonably reasonable.

Put aside Iowa, since I think this year may have finally put that beknighted caucus to rest as an important player (Arizona Sen. John McCain skipped it, won New Hampshire; Democratic challenger Bill Bradley poured a few million into it, got clobbered, and has still not recovered. Memo to the Class of 2004 -- go directly to New Hampshire, do not pass Des Moines). And consider: