YOU KNOW YOU'RE a president in trouble when...the Comedy Channel carries your State of the Union address with live commentary. When you have to make self-deprecating remarks in that address about yarfing at a state dinner. When you go to New Hampshire and get so giddy with that down-home-in-Texas crap that you babble obtusely about the "Nitty Ditty Gritty Nitty Dirt Band."

Yes, it's been a glorious few weeks. It's been a time in which the once (and probably still) impossible hope of a Democratic win has actually looked plausible. Still, amid the stupidity and humor of Bush's difficulties--the very fuel of those hopes--there's more at stake. Some profound changes for our politics--or at least long-lasting trends--lurk underneath the quirky fissures in Bush's support network.

Among the more intractable and trend-revealing problems:

George Bush versus the White House. John Sununu's still on the payroll in the West Wing, and everyone still hates him. Even so, the new chief of staff, Sam Skinner, is holding a tight leash on his predecessor. Since December, CNN has been trying to get Sununu to take Buchanan's place on "Crossfire" (or simply to appear on a show), but he always has to "check with Sam," and Sam never lets him play.

Meanwhile, Skinner is not much better than Sununu was at improving the president's image. The Japan trip was a fiasco, and Skinner let budget director Richard G. Darman talk Bush into stalling on new economic proposals until last Tuesday, during the State of the Union address. The yearly snoozer of a speech was probably watched by lots of people. Some may have even paid attention. None will remember it.

In the meantime, Bush was stuck lamely with saying things like, "I probably have made mistakes in assessing the fact that the economy would recover.... I think I've known, look, this economy is in freefall. I hope I've known it."

Even considering the huge lexicon of Bush misstatements, this is particularly idiotic. To take even partial blame for the economic decline--and to use the harsh terms of the Democrats to describe it--is suicidal in a state reeling as much as New Hampshire. He should beat up on Congress, liberals and anyone else who comes to mind. Just not himself.

All of this delicious confusion may help (minimally, at least) to defeat Bush next November, but it's symptomatic of larger problems.

Bush's is the de Tocqueville presidency. The model is simple--get a bunch of rich, white, big-headed blowhards together, mostly lawyers, to run a country too complex for all those smelly voters. Not only does their silly bickering effectively shut out from Bush's narrow view the troubles and concerns of minorities and women. It's also a stupid, inefficient way to run a government.

And instead of reinvigorating the place with new faces and new ideas, Bush seems to insist on hiring only those who've passed some absurd loyalty test.

Witness the appointment last week of Massachusetts native Andrew H. Card to replace Skinner at the Department of Transportation. In the 1988 race, Card urged Bush to use the Willie Horton story and Michael Dukakis's veto of the Pledge of Allegiance bill when both had been largely forgotten. They were winners. Loyalty oath passed.

GEORGE BUSH versus Pat Buchanan. The latest polls (by the American Research Group, a New Hampshire firm) show the isolationist and "probably" anti-Semitic (William F. Buckley's conclusion--not mine, which would have been something like "Goebbelsesque") Patrick J. Buchanan to have broken the 30 percent mark.

Of course, 30 percent isn't a win. It's not really close. But Buchanan's numbers will probably go up, and Bush's will keep sliding. Former Nixon speechwriter Buchanan has bought tons of TV time in New Hampshire (about three and a half hours, according to The New York Times)--more than even the well-financed Bill Clinton.

On the other hand, Bush has bought nada so far. In fact, the president plans only two more swings through the state before the primary on February 18.

In addition, Buchanan has the staunch support of The Manchester Union-Leader, the only major state-wide newspaper. In a front-page editorial January 22, the paper unequivocally endorsed Buchanan (they actually printed the endorsement sentence in bold type), citing cartoonishly his belief "that America should be first" and "that we should remove ourselves from all foreign entanglements except for those that directly benefit the United States."