Analysis: Democrats line up in the race to compete for the White House

The game's afoot. Al Gore's decision not to run for the White House in 2004 has thrown the race for the Democratic presidential nomination wide open.

The first primary may be more than 12 months away. But the great god of money has decreed that the starting post is now. Over the next year, goes the rule of thumb calculation, a candidate must raise at least $20m (£12.5m) to finance a viable campaign. But that is a pittance compared to the prize: the right to compete for the most powerful office on earth.

The entrants are under no illusion over the task ahead. Whoever wins will tackle a president who now enjoys the highest sustained approval ratings of any White House occupant in modern history, and whose party has complete control of Capitol Hill, enabling it to frame the legislative agenda to his advantage. And America is at war, making the electorate less inclined to rock the boat. For all the array of senatorial firepower in the likely Democratic field, the last senator to become president was John Kennedy, more than 40 years ago.

By contrast, four of the last five presidents were state governors. The only one around this time (and the only formally declared candidate thus far) is Howard Dean of Vermont, a tiny north-eastern state whose significance in presidential politics is summed up by the old jest, "As goes Maine, so goes Vermont". On top of this, the party is in a mess. The Democrats lost November's mid-term elections in part because of Mr Bush's popularity, but mainly because of their inability to come up with attractive alternative policies, above all on the economy. Depressing but true, by far and away the most compelling Democratic performer on the campaign trail was Bill Clinton.

Curiously, the Democrats sincerely believe Mr Bush is beatable. One reason is what happened in 1992, when another George Bush was seeking re-election. The party's big guns (among them one Al Gore who had run unsuccessfully in 1988) declined to line up for what seemed certain slaughter at the hands of a president victorious over Iraq, only for the governor of the small and unfashionable state of Arkansas to upend every prediction and win.

True, none of the Democratic field of 2004 has the stunning political gifts of Mr Clinton. But there are tantalising similarities between then and now. War with Iraq again looks likely, and at the very same moment in the electoral cycle. And if the economy undid George Bush Snr a decade ago, a slide into recession could likewise undo his son. A presidential nomination, even in the most unpromising circumstances, is always worth having. You just never know.

Handicapping the field before it has even formally declared, more than a year before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, is a pointless exercise. The next 12 months are an unremitting slog, of fund-raising, of lining up support among key local activists in the early primary states, of making speeches to which only a tiny specialist audience is paying attention. Unforeseen disaster can derail the most impressive candidate; conversely an unfancied outsider can suddenly be anointed by the media as the man to watch, earning publicity and insider buzz which millions of dollars cannot buy.

But even in a wide open race, some points can be made. Unarguably, the greatest immediate beneficiary of Mr Gore's decision is Joe Lieberman, his running mate in 2000. Mr Lieberman had said he would not run if his old boss did. Now he is likely to declare within two or three weeks, and thanks to the name recognition he gained during the last campaign and its disputed aftermath, may move to the top of the early polls. He is also a man of few enemies, nicely positioned on the conservative wing of his party on economic policy, and more hawkish on Iraq than even Mr Bush.

Mr Gore's absence makes it more likely that the two senior Democrats in the last Congress, the outgoing Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, and Richard Gephardt, the former House minority leader, will throw their hats into the ring. Mr Gephardt, who ran in 1988 but passed in 1992, is an all-but-sure candidate. As a MidWesterner from neighbouring Missouri, he is well placed for the Iowa caucuses, the first important event of the primary season.

Mr Daschle has kept his cards closer to his chest, but friends suspect he will be unable to resist the temptation. But as the nearest things to national party leaders during November's mid-terms, both carry the baggage of that defeat. Both are known quantities. Both are plodding speakers, and neither is overburdened with the charisma which can see a campaign catch fire.

The man who at this early stage most closely meets that criterion is John Kerry, from the same state and indeed with the same initials as JFK, a decorated Vietnam war veteran and former prosecutor, who, as a New Englander, will have a head start in the crucial New Hampshire primary, a week after Iowa.

Mr Kerry offers an imposing physical presence and gravitas by the cartload. But the gravitas sometimes comes across as aloofness and arrogance, and in a more conservative America than Kennedy knew, Massachusetts liberals hardly have the best credentials for the White House.

Southerners do. Each of the last five presidents has had strong southern (or in Ronald Reagan's case Western) connections; George Bush Senior might have been a Yankee gentleman, but come election time he played up his Texas oil industry past for all it was worth.

This time, the likely Southern contender is John Edwards, first-term Senator for North Carolina and who if nothing else fills the demand for a fresh face. He may not (or not yet) be the "new Clinton", but he has attracted enough competent strategists and advisers to make up for the thinness of his policy prescriptions.

These, along with Mr Dean, are the six most obvious runners. But others may join them. The outsiders include Christopher Dodd, Mr Lieberman's Senate colleague from Connecticut, the mediagenic General Wesley Clark, who was Nato commander during the Kosovo war, and conceivably Joe Biden of Delaware, whose last run for the White House ended ignominiously in 1987 when it emerged he had been plagiarising – wait for it – Neil Kinnock in campaign speeches. Hillary Clinton, the Democrat with the greatest name recognition of all, is believed to have her sights on 2008.

Whatever happens, a fascinating contest lies ahead. All sectors of the Democratic spectrum are represented: Mr Gephardt as standard-bearer of its traditional labour constituency, Mr Kerry as northern liberal, Mr Lieberman from the party's right, and Mr Edwards as the man with the best chance of denting Mr Bush in the South.

The next 12 months, it may be safely predicted, will abound with complaints that the real issues are not being addressed, that the media is trivialising everything, and that sound-bites have shrunk yet smaller. The complaints will doubtless be justified. But as has been observed a thousand times: British politicians stand in contests; American ones run in races.

This particular race may ultimately be in pursuit of a lost cause. But it should be one of the best in years.

In the running - likely candidates for the 2004 nomination

Tom Daschle

Aged 55, Senator for South Dakota since 1987, and party leader in the Senate since 1994. Broadly on the liberal wing of his party, he has the reputation of a "prairie populist". In fact, his quietly spoken but determined manner has made him an effective Democratic spokesman on TV.

Howard Dean

Aged 54, Governor of Vermont since 1991. The likeable Mr Dean has been working key primary states including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, but has made little public headway. A social and cultural liberal, he is a doctor, backing universal health coverage.

John Edwards

Aged 49, Senator for North Carolina since 1999. Mr Edwards is young, charming and articulate, and Al Gore's second choice for the vice-presidential nomination in 2000. If he were to win the nomination, Republicans will make much of his background as a trial lawyer.

Richard Gephardt

Aged 61, congressman for St Louis, Missouri, since 1977. A skilled deal-maker on Capitol Hill, Mr Gephardt was Democratic leader in the House from 1995 to 2002. Close ties with organised labour, and has opposed his party on NAFTA. A strong backer of President Bush on Iraq.

John Kerry

Aged 59, Senator for Massachusetts since 1985. Tall with grey hair, Mr Kerry looks the part of president, and talks it too. A liberal, but voted President Bush war powers against Iraq. Married to Teresa Heinz, widow of the food magnate John Heinz, with a fortune of $600m.

Joe Lieberman

Aged 60, Senator for Connecticut since 1989. From the right wing of his party, he is hawkish on Iraq, and backed school vouchers and part-privatisation of social security. A civilised politician, with hardly an enemy. Mr Lieberman is also Jewish. That caused no problems in 2000.