Iowa/New Hampshire winter book: TIE asked six experts how the early stages of the 2004 Democratic primary season could shake out.

• Position: United States

Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt have a small edge over the others

JOHN SEARS Campaign manager for President Reagan If the past is prologue, we will know the Democratic nominee for president by March 1, 2004. While the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are often described as the beginning of the nomination race, in fact these two events mark the culmination of the process. After these two encounters, a clear frontrunner emerges whose advantages in raising money, securing endorsements, and earning superior publicity ensure his ultimate success even though he may lose a primary now and then. An anointed challenger is allowed to remain in the race in case the frontrunner's own incompetence during the remainder of the process renders him un-nominatable. So far, no frontrunner has failed to prevail.

The question of who will capture the frontrunner's mantle during the next year is confusing. The field is weak and no one has a national following significant enough to mention. Only Representative Dick Gephardt (MO) has had experience at the national political level and one must quickly add that his last attempt at winning the nomination left his supporters wondering whether they should support him again.

Primary voters demand yes-or-no answers and often this provides an advantage for governors (Carter, Clinton). Instincts honed in Congress teach that there is safety in qualified answers and grave danger in simple, easily understood responses. But only Governor Dean has announced his candidacy and it is impossible to imagine a national Democratic ticket headed by the governor of Vermont.

As we now start the nomination process, three candidates have a small advantage over the others:

* Senator John Kerry (MA): An acceptable liberal with strong ties to veterans, Kerry's family wealth is a double advantage. If he can win in Iowa, victory in New Hampshire would be assured and his popularity in the large, delegate-rich states of the northeast and Midwest unbeatable. However, he has a short fuse and will find it difficult to endure the hand-to-hand combat necessary to win in Iowa. A Republican who knows him well predicts, "John will blow. He will find the process degrading."

* Senator John Edwards (NC): A youthful candidate with more charisma than anyone else, Edwards would normally have a better chance of success. But his attempt comes only two years after the end of the Clinton Administration. In 1984, Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas strongly considered a presidential race but concluded that insufficient time had elapsed since the demise of Jimmy Carter for another southerner to be successful. "No matter what I might do, the liberals will demand the fight to nominate one of their own," he said. Edwards has the same problem.

* Representative Gephardt: Strong union backing won the Iowa caucuses for Gephardt the last time he ran and, if Kerry falters, he would be a comfortable landing place for most party liberals. Even if he wins in Iowa, he in unlikely to win in New Hampshire if Kerry makes a strong showing in Iowa. Second place, or even a strong third, in Iowa gives New Hampshire to Kerry as well as entitlement to the liberal wing of the party in the remaining primaries.

The black candidates are unlikely to affect the outcome. Most black officeholders are unwilling to see either Sharpton or Moseley-Braun assume a higher role as spokesperson for the black movement, something that didn't bother them as much about Jesse Jackson. Many black voters feel the same way.

This all sounds like good news for the Republicans but, as a Republican friend of mine says, "Let's not forget that President Bush's father demonstrated that the American electorate is more than willing to elect a clown if they simply cannot stomach another few years of you."

Democrats have a long history of looking behind or beyond Iowa and New Hampshire

JACK GERMOND Political columnist The first thing you have to understand about the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination is that winning the most votes in the Iowa precinct caucuses or the New Hampshire primary doesn't make you the winner. That depends upon the outcome of what is always called "the expectations game"--meaning how each candidate is perceived by the political community and press once the votes have been counted.

The last time the Democrats were choosing a candidate to oppose a Republican Bush in the White House, for example, Paul Tsongas won the most votes in the 1992 New Hampshire primary but Bill Clinton was The Winner. He finished second and declared himself "the comeback kid," thus making an asset of sorts of the furor over the Gennifer Flowers episode in which, we learned four years later, he had lied about his complicity. The run for the nomination was essentially all over.

The Democrats have a long history of looking behind or beyond the returns. In 1968 President Lyndon B. Johnson won the primary but was mortally wounded by Eugene J. McCarthy in the war of perceptions. In 1972 Ed Muskie captured the most votes but George McGovern won the expectations game with a strong second.

It can happen in Iowa, as well. Jimmy Carter's triumph in the caucuses in 1976 made him the favorite in New Hampshire. In 1984 Gary Hart became an overnight wunderkind by capturing 16 percent of the Iowa vote, a distant second to Walter F. Mondale but enough of a surprise to give Hart the momentum in New Hampshire a week later.

At this point, there appear to be four Democrats who make up what might be called the first tier: Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Bob Graham, and Representative Dick Gephardt. These are the candidates who automatically qualify as heavyweights by virtue of their experience and political credentials and their ability to raise the kind of money that would make them competitive. A step behind them in the pecking order but enjoying at least a realistic chance are John Edwards, serving his first term in the Senate, and Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont.

It is always possible that the strength of some of those first-tier candidates will prove illusory. In 1976 Democratic primary voters rejected Birch Bayh, a senator from Indiana considered a big hitter in Washington. The same was tree of an Indiana Republican, Senator Richard Lugar, in 2000. So it is possible the qualities that have made, for example, Bob Graham such a political force in Florida won't travel well in the compressed and frenetic world of primary campaigning.

Indeed, none of the putatively leading Democrats has answered all the questions about himself. Lieberman is not widely admired among the liberals who play such a disproportionate role in the primary process. Some consider him too conservative. Others, including many Jews, are uncomfortable with his conspicuous religiosity.

Although the favorite of much of organized labor, Gephardt's performance the one time he ran for the nomination, in 1988, has left a lingering sour taste among those with long...