It's either Pat, Bob or a winner

Since 1952, the New Hampshire primary has "undermined front-runners, launched dark horses, provided a spectacle for political junkies and left indelible images on our collective imagination" -- all this according to Gettysburg College history professor Michael Birkner in a talk last week at the New Hampshire Historical Society.

In addition, Birkner reminded listeners that "you don't have to win the New Hampshire primary to win the New Hampshire primary. All you have to do is beat expectations and make people eat their words."

That observation certainly held this week. Of the half dozen or so major candidates on the ballot, only three are left standing. Fourth-place finisher Steve Forbes, the political shooting star of the 1996 election cycle, shining brightly then fading fast, literally ate his words in a nationally televised debate when he publicly atoned for substituting negative ads for his message of growth and opportunity. Though Forbes can stick in the race for as long -- as he wants by spending his own money, he is most likely to join Sen. Phil Gramm and Rep. Bob Dornan in the stable of also-rans -- to be followed by Sen. Dick Lugar, former Ambassador Alan Keyes and the rest.

Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, the second place finisher, is the big loser. A Dole win in New Hampshire would have stopped the flow of money to his major opponents and all but sewed up his nomination. Instead, he leaves New Hampshire badly wounded, Some of the wounds were inflicted by the millions of dollars of negative ads financed by Steve Forbes, but most were self-inflicted, reflecting Dole's inability to articulate a vision for where he would take America. Result: Many Republicans doubt that Dole can stand up to Clinton in a debate and many more fear he would lead his party to defeat in November.

The two big winners are commentator Pat Buchanan and Lamar Alexander. Though both have extensive experience in Washington, both ran as outsiders. In addition, both ran generally upbeat campaigns that minimized negative advertising and both articulated coherent if sharply different visions of the future of America. This was a winning combination of themes and strategies that won more than 50% of the vote in New Hampshire.

Buchananism is an all-American mix of protectionism, isolationism, nativism and "rot-at-the-top" populism -- plus a social agenda that would expand the role of the federal government in our lives. Buchananism has deep roots in American political culture and many colorful champions -- including Huey Long, Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, Jesse Jackson and George McGovern. That's why it would be a mistake to discount Buchanan's appeal, which may be much deeper, broader and more bipartisan than the political and media establishment would have us believe.

But many Americans can't stomach Buchanan's views and Republicans say he would deeply divide their party. So Republicans opposed to Buchananism have to choose. Is it Bob Dole, whose Beltway chatter about OMBs and CBOs is off-putting to many and whose public support collapsed in Iowa and New Hampshire? Or is it Lamar Alexander, who has a strong and coherent vision of the future, and whose support rises sharply the more people come to know who he is and what he stands for -- as shown by his meteoric rise in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

At the end of the day, Republicans may decide to jump to the side of the former dark horse Lamar Alexander. Reason: Alexander, the man Clinton's people fear most is the only Republican candidate who can unify the party and beat Bill Clinton.