JIM BOURG/REUTERS

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is cheered by supporters in Manchester, N.H.

Examples: In 1992’s New Hampshire primary, Bill Clinton finished 8 points behind Massachusetts Democrat Paul Tsongas, yet the press called it a win. New Hampshire was Tsongas’ backyard and Clinton had been so dogged with scandals that when he came in a strong second he earned the moniker “The Comeback Kid.” When George W. Bush lost the state to John McCain four years ago, it nearly derailed his campaign because he was expected to coast. In 1976, Jimmy Carter finished behind “Undecided” in the Iowa Caucuses but was dubbed the big winner of the night by the media because no one had ever heard of him before. So how are this year’s Democrats playing the expectations game, with Iowa less than two weeks away? Here’s a look:

Dean Ho-Ho better have a good Get-Out-The-Vote operation in Iowa, because the media has spent more than a month calling his victory there almost certain. It’s not. He may be leading in the polls, but the caucus process is complicated, and polls don’t always measure who will actually show up that night and support a candidate. For a year Dean benefited from low expectations. No one took him seriously, so his rise to the top was all the more dramatic. Now it’s the opposite. If he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s not big news. But if loses either one, even by a few votes, he leaves the door open for more stories about how Democrats aren’t totally comfortable with him. To counter that, Campaign Manager Joe Trippi has been telling reporters this week that wins are not certain, that Dick Gephardt and John Kerry are gaining ground in Iowa and Wes Clark is gaining in New Hampshire.

Worse for Dean are pundits saying that he’ll have the nomination locked up if he wins both. Not hardly. While it might give him the big Mo going into Feb. 3’s seven state contest, he will face his toughest challenge that day: proving he can win with Southern voters, particularly blacks, in South Carolina, Missouri and Oklahoma. If he falls flat, the Democrats will start looking around for a new frontrunner.

Gephardt The former top Democrat in the House has not played the expectations game well. Gephardt won in Iowa in 1988 but quickly lost funding and steam afterwards. Why would he replay that strategy? Granted, Iowa is his best shot at a win since he’s from Missouri and Iowa is a big union state. Plus, because he won in 1988, the media has assumed anything less than a win this time is disaster. Gephardt has compounded that by pouring vast amounts of his time and money into the state — 80% of his ad money has been spent in Iowa. That’s created two possible scenarios. If he loses the caucus, everyone will say he’s finished. If he wins everyone will say he’s not dead yet, but where does he go next? He’s been pushing in South Carolina, but not enough to overtake John Edwards or Clark. Oklahoma? Has that ever been the key to the nomination? (No offense, Sooners.) His best states, in the Midwest, don’t come 'til later.

Kerry The Massachusetts Senator has had all of the disadvantages of being the onetime frontrunner with none of the benefits. He was supposed to easily win in his neighboring New Hampshire, but Dean has clobbered him there for months. Now he’s pinning his hopes on showing third in Iowa, placing second in New Hampshire and regrouping if Dean fails in the South. But Kerry might not even finish second in New Hampshire because Clark has been overtaking him in recent polls. If he can’t hold on, he can expect another deluge of stories about what a disappointment his campaign has been.

Clark Nice recovery. When the retired general declared his candidacy last fall after months of anticipation, he could only disappoint. And for the first month Clark fell flat on his face, with misstatements and a campaign organization that kept falling over itself. Oddly, Clark may have done himself a favor. His troubles lowered expectations — everyone resumed calling him Veep material — especially after he withdrew from Iowa and said he just hoped to finish fourth in New Hampshire. Now he’s overtaking Kerry in that state, running well in national polls and Dean aides are handing out attack fliers outside Clark rallies.

Edwards Another early frontrunner dogged by high expectations and disappointing results, the North Carolina Senator has been doing better in recent weeks as strong debate performances have convinced voters to give him a second look. He’s now hoping for a third place finish in Iowa and a win in South Carolina. Problem is, if none of the other major contenders have dropped out by then, what distinguishes him from the rest of the anti-Dean pack?

Lieberman The Connecticut Senator is probably the expectations game’s biggest loser. On the one hand, his run for Vice President in 2000 gave him better name recognition than any other member of the field, but at the same time, his conservative views haven’t appealed to primary voters and the primary map hasn’t given him many opportunities. Iowa? He’s pulled out to focus on New Hampshire. New Hampshire? He’s from New England but has been overtaken by Dean, Kerry and now Clark. Arizona? Lieberman’s been hoping to make his stand there, but the latest state poll puts Dean at 22%, Clark at 19% and Lieberman at 7%.

Kucinich, Moseley Braun and Sharpton The nice thing about being at the bottom of the ladder is you can only go up. None of these three are expected to win a single delegate, so if they can pull off a surprise, they’ve won a major coup. If they don’t do anything, they’ve still gained a lot of exposure.

BACK TO TOP