ALL QUIET ON THE FRONT-RUNNER FRONT

Pay attention, now. This could get confusing. We are about to enter that misty realm where the political meets the metaphysical.

Here is what we know: Bill Clinton, the governor of Arkansas, has become the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

How do we know this? Because newspaper writers and television talkers have told us so.

But we also know this: Clinton`s lead is ephemeral. In fact, it`s chimerical, defined by the dictionary as ”imaginary; unreal.” It is simply the product of newspaper writers and television talkers who feel they have to declare someone to be the front-runner in order to justify their opulent expense-account living on the banks of the fabled Merrimack River.

And how do we know this? Because newspaper writers and television talkers have told us so. True, some of them are different newspaper writers and televison talkers than those who have pronounced Clinton the front-runner. But some are not.

So let`s sum up where we are so far, in terms as neutral and academic as possible: A conflicts with B; but he who asserts A also asserts B. thereby undermining both A and himself. There may be nothing quite like this in all of nature.

As we proceed with a detailed examination of this phenomenon, a commitment to full disclosure requires me to disclose fully that in earlier quadrennia I myself was one of those wandering about New Hampshire, spending the company`s money while observing the doings of would-be presidents. Ah, the fleshpots of Portsmouth, the earthly delights of Concord, the voluptuousness of Nashua, the madcap mania of Manchester in the moonlight.

Yes, I have repented of these sins. But I retain friendly relations with some of the current transgressors, perhaps perverting my judgment but also providing insight into their fundamental dilemma, which (reverting here to neutral, academic language) may be stated as follows: ”Something must be said even though nothing is happening.”

Faced with this conundrum, one is obviously tempted to say something about a nothing that can be clothed to appear as though it were a something. A poll, for instance.

You know this if you were anywhere near a radio over the weekend, in which case you heard a newscaster say something like: ”Good news for President Bush; a new poll shows him leading his closest Democratic challenger (Clinton, as it happens) by 47 to 31 percent.”

This is not good news for President Bush for the simple reason that it is not news at all, being meaningless. That a president whom everyone knows should lead the governor of a small state of whom few have heard is unremarkable. Yet it was widely remarked because it was a number, which appears to be real, though, as any mathematician can attest, it is often a symbol. You were warned this would get metaphysical.

A similar number is one of the things that gives Clinton his front-runnerdom. The latest poll, as reported by one of the networks, gives him a 12-point lead. But a 12-point lead at 29 to 17 (which is what the poll shows) is not at all the same as a 12-point lead at 50 to 38. The latter is the lead of a real front-runner; the former the temporary standing of someone being given the once-over by the voters.

Think never so poorly of our declarers, though, to suppose them slaves to mere numbers. No, Clinton has also been declared the leader on the basis of evidence less tangible but more valid, as follows: He has been declared the leader because he has been declared the leader.

Now there are two ways to look at this, each contradicting the other and both of them true. First is the cynical view that these political reporters talk to one another all day, and that from these conversations emerges a

”conventional wisdom,” which they then reinforce at night over spiritous libations.

This is a vile libel, a defamation, a shameful, slanderous insult. It is absolutely correct.

But so is this: The political reporters don`t talk only to each other. They talk to voters before and after candidate appearances. They watch the candidates and they watch the audiences respond to candidates. They can see who comes across well and who does not. Clinton does.

Then, inevitably, comes the reinforcement and recycling process. Being spoken and written about as a good candidate, Clinton rises in the polls, inspiring stories about how he is rising in the polls, inspiring more talk about what a good candidate he is . . . and on, and on, at least for a while. Besides, Clinton is a good candidate. Did you see that debate the other day? Befitting a front-runner, he was the object of attack by the others. They didn`t lay a glove on him. Clinton. He`s the front-runner. If you want to know why, it`s because I just said so.