Honesty Is the Best Policy When Pursuing Presidency : Campaign: Character issue is Clinton’s biggest hurdle. Poll shows that 38% of voters question his integrity.

Honesty is not the only thing voters expect in a President, but it may be the one indispensable thing.

And right now, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton is having difficulty meeting that minimum standard--especially in New York, where he faces a critical showdown Tuesday with former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr.

Doubts about Clinton’s honesty and integrity represent his most formidable hurdle as he tries to regain control of the Democratic presidential race and plot a course against President Bush.

Clinton has steadfastly persevered through repeated allegations about his private behavior and public ethics to emerge as the clear Democratic front-runner. But a recent series of national surveys suggests that the cumulative weight of those charges has created an ominous credibility gap for the Arkansas governor with large portions of the electorate.

For Clinton, these recent national surveys could not be more sobering. In a nationwide Los Angeles Times Poll this week, 38% of Americans held a negative opinion of Clinton, while only 40% viewed him positively--a precarious ratio for any politician. “For a successful candidate and a presumptive Democratic nominee, that’s an extraordinarily high negative number,” said Tom Kiley, the pollster for Michael S. Dukakis’ 1988 presidential bid.

In The Times Poll, Americans split evenly on whether Clinton had “the honesty and integrity” they expected in a President, with 39% saying yes and 38% no. By contrast, two-thirds of those polled in the recent Times survey said Bush met the standards of integrity they expected in the presidency; just one-quarter disagreed.

Of more immediate concern to Clinton, effective campaigning by Brown, a cultural suspicion of Southerners and hostility from two of the major New York City tabloid newspapers, the New York Post and the New York Daily News, have raised doubts about the Arkansas governor here to a level perhaps unmatched anywhere in the nation. One poll released last week found a stunning 57% of state residents did not believe Clinton had the honesty and integrity to serve as President.

Strategists in both parties caution that these doubts don’t bar Clinton from winning either the nomination or the general election--particularly if the economy remains sluggish. Voters already prefer Clinton over Bush when asked who is concerned about the problems of ordinary people. And in New York, a new poll by the Marist Institute shows Clinton holding a double-digit lead over Brown--partly because as many Democrats hold a negative view of Brown as they do of Clinton.

Clinton partisans also find comfort in the fact that both Ronald Reagan and George Bush overcame comparably high negatives in their campaigns for the White House. And Clinton--who tells audiences his ordeal has demonstrated he “can take a punch and give one back”--has clearly impressed some Americans with his tenacity.

But most analysts believe that Clinton must reassure more voters of his fundamental trustworthiness--which was never at issue for Bush or Reagan--if he is finally to seal the nomination and then effectively challenge the President.

Even if Clinton survives Brown’s challenge, as most Democrats still expect, the hill only gets steeper. The broader electorate in the general election is likely to be less sympathetic to his problems than the relatively narrow pool that decides Democratic primaries.

The ethical concerns about Clinton spring from almost antithetical assessments of his character: Voters are simultaneously damning him for being too calculating and too reckless.

For some voters, the charges of recklessness in his personal life--centered on the unsubstantiated allegations by Gennifer Flowers that she conducted a long-term affair with Clinton--are sufficient to disqualify him from a job many still view as a symbol of the nation’s values.

At the same time, many voters view Clinton’s answers to the inquiries about his marriage, his Vietnam-era draft record and other concerns as too calculated and evasive. Last weekend, for example, when Clinton revealed he had experimented with marijuana as a Rhodes scholar in England more than 20 years ago, some felt he strained credulity by adding that he “didn’t inhale.” So implausible did many people find that assertion that comic Billy Crystal was able to bring down the house at Monday night’s Academy Awards simply by repeating it with a disbelieving look on his face.

“What does he mean, ‘I didn’t inhale?’ Everybody inhales,” said Naomi Korbin, a Manhattan artist, as she walked through a Brown rally in Manhattan’s Union Square this week. “Clinton seems very slippery.”

That view is reinforced, many analysts believe, by the seemingly relentless flow of accusations--large and small--against Clinton in the press. At this point, the facts of each case may be less important to public perception than the repeated image of Clinton standing on a Tarmac trying to battle off the latest charges of wrongdoing.

No one in the Clinton camp minimizes the magnitude of the problem, but aides believe several factors could mitigate it.

Some believe the press’ intensive scrutiny of Clinton could eventually inspire a backlash. One straw in the wind: Talk show host Phil Donahue was booed by his own studio audience Wednesday after repeatedly pressing Clinton for more details about his relationship with Flowers.

Another key, aides believe, is for Clinton to acknowledge his imperfections and, in effect, ask anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Even more important, advisers maintain, is for Clinton to convince voters that more than his own ambition is driving him to persevere in the race. In essence, these strategists argue, Clinton’s best hope of countering his negatives is not to attack them directly, but rather to balance them by proving to voters that he is fighting for social and economic change.

“I think you exhibit character in public life by standing for something,” said Los Angeles attorney Mickey Kantor, the campaign chairman. “First we have to get people’s respect: They have to believe in your message; then they believe in you.”

To what extent any of these strategies will mitigate the doubts about Clinton with the public is unclear--particularly if continued investigation reveals more questionable activities in his past. History doesn’t offer precise guidance on his prospects because no previous candidate has endured such blows and remained in the race.

At roughly this point in 1988, almost 40% of the electorate also viewed Bush negatively, according to Gallup surveys. But most analysts believe Clinton’s situation diverges from Bush’s because of the nature of the doubts voters hold about Clinton.

Voter concerns about Bush in 1988 centered on the perception that he lacked both independence and strength. Eventually, Bush moderated those anxieties by declaring his independence from Reagan at the convention, and by showing strength in attacking Dukakis.

But Kiley and other analysts in both parties are skeptical that Clinton can follow the same strategy and make himself more acceptable to voters by increasing doubts about Bush’s honesty.

UNHAPPY WITH CANDIDATES: Nationwide poll shows 66% of people are dissatisfied with the presidential candidates. A25