any people concerned because the 2000 presidential primary calendar is a shambles believe New Hampshire made matters worse by setting its primary date on Feb. 1, a week earlier than had been anticipated.
This is awkward for Iowa, which must now decide whether to move its caucuses a week earlier than it had planned. If it does, the whole process - already far too long - will be extended a week.
All this is true, but the fault is not with New Hampshire. Secretary of State Bill Gardner was forced by state law to choose the Feb. 1 date because Delaware insisted on pushing its primary too close.
National party officials now making overt and covert threats to the primacy of these two proven battlegrounds would more accurately point the finger of blame at themselves. For years, party leaders have lamented the trend toward early primaries and caucuses, but their views have amounted to nothing more than blandishments and pieties. They have done nothing of substance.
The result in 2000 will be a massive front-loading of big-state primaries on March 7 that will likely be indistinguishable from the much-deplored national primary, giving enormous advantage to big-spending, well-known candidates. Even more than usual, Iowa and New Hampshire offer a glimmer of hope for more competition.
Now, both parties are openly questioning the early calendar. The Republican National Committee sent out surveys to RNC members last week asking, ''If the process is reformed, should Iowa and New Hampshire retain their first-in-the-nation status?''
But the early states are not the problem. The shift of California and other large states to early primary dates - and the wimpish failure to stop them - are. The national parties run the nominating conventions. They can arrange for a sensible calendar if they take the responsibility, instead of blaming people doing a better job than they.
