Clinton Scores Key Points With Voters, Survey Finds

Although his remarks received mixed grades for oratory, Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton scored strong political points with voters who spoke with the Los Angeles Times after listening to his acceptance speech Thursday night.

Clinton’s remarks--and the biographical video that preceded it--clearly presented him in a new light for many of the listeners. Familiar with the questions about his character raised during the primaries, many saw him Thursday night precisely in the way his campaign had hoped: As a young, energetic moderate with a plan to revive the economy rooted in his own middle-class upbringing.

“Clinton has at least come up with a basic plan,” said George Fee, 67, a lifelong Republican residing in Huntington Beach. “I don’t know what Bush’s plan is. It’s a serious problem when a leader never leads.”

Fee, who said he has never voted for a Democratic presidential nominee, may back Clinton this year.

A few warning signs for Clinton emerged from the interviews. Some listeners still doubt he has the experience or the moral character for the nation’s top job, while others wonder where he will raise the money to pay for the initiatives he promised Thursday night.

“I don’t quite trust him,” said Kathryn Churchill, a 54-year-old piano teacher in Berthoud, Colo., who still intends to vote for President Bush. “Part of that is even though he’s been governor of a state for many years, he hasn’t been to Washington and I think the ballgame is different there.”

But the predominant response was positive, even among some of those traditionally suspicious of the Democratic Party.

“The values and the goals he talked about I’m really in agreement with,” said Clare Graham, a 53-year-old clinical social worker from Aurora, Colo. “I think he’s young and vital. He’s giving back hope to people like me and my children who are in the middle class and have the values of the middle class.”

Graham was one of 20 registered voters in eight states who spoke with Times reporters after Clinton’s speech Thursday night. Several were visited in their homes; others spoke with a reporter by telephone after the address. All had responded in a Times poll last week that they had a lukewarm opinion of Clinton, one that was either slightly favorable or slightly unfavorable.

In the wake of the Democratic National Convention--and Ross Perot’s decision not to launch an independent presidential candidacy--Clinton and his running mate, Tennessee Sen. Al Gore, have surged to leads of 20 percentage points or more over President Bush in several national opinion polls. But analysts in both parties note that such post-convention “bumps” often have proved fragile in the past.

In the long run, more important for Clinton than this week’s polls is whether he is lessening the doubts voters have held about his honesty, character and leadership abilities, said Republican pollster Bill McInturff. And on that front, The Times’ interviews suggest that Clinton’s acceptance speech substantially improved voter attitudes about both his policy agenda and his personal background. If Clinton can sustain those views after the euphoric afterglow of the convention fades, he will be in a strong position for the fall, McInturff said.

Few of the listeners interviewed by The Times confused Clinton’s resolutely not-so-lyrical speech with the Gettysburg Address.

“The speech went on too long,” said Terry Rutledge, 41, a Pompano Beach, Fla., seafood broker. “I think Gore gave a better speech.”

But Clinton’s pounding repetition of a few central themes--his middle-class background, his intention to move beyond traditional liberal programs, his call for a “New Covenant” of reciprocal responsibility between government and citizens--appeared to serve its purpose.

Clinton was attempting to say to middle-class voters: “I’m one of you.” And that message reached many in his audience.

One who heard it was Violetta Baker of Hazel Park, Mich.

“Perot was the man for me, because he seemed like he was for the people,” said the 67-year-old woman. And before hearing Clinton, she had considered him “too much of a hotshot” and thought he had lied when he insisted he had not inhaled when he sampled marijuana in college.

But Clinton’s speech--especially its section on his childhood--swung Baker to his corner. “I believe I will vote for him now,” she said.

She added: “I assumed that he probably came from a moneyed family. But this man earned his way into where he is today. He had a tough life and he overcame his hardships.”

Most of the other voters who discussed the speech with The Times shared Baker’s enhanced opinion of Clinton. Here are some of the key points they cited:

Ideology: “I’m glad the Democrats have moved to the center,” said Fee, the Huntington Beach Republican. “We’re not talking Teddy Kennedy and handout, handout, handout. I don’t see Clinton as a liberal, liberal at all.”

Linda Dow, who works for a Seattle area aerospace contractor, remains uncertain who she will vote for in November, but was impressed by Clinton’s talk of reforming the government. “The American government is overbearing and dominant,” she says. “He wants to return ownership and responsibility to the people.”

Empathy: Some said that Clinton’s own difficult upbringing--which many learned of for the first time Thursday night--might make him more sympathetic to the problems of average people suffering through difficult times.

James Grier, a 50-year-old African-American psychologist in Miami said: “What I did take out of the speech was that he lost his father, that he was raised by his mother and his grandmother . . . that they didn’t have money. I would say then that he has the capability of feeling what a one-parent (family), especially a black mother, might be going through for the sake of a child.”

Economic Plan: Several of those watching said they wanted more specifics about Clinton’s program, but were pleased that his central focus was on reviving the economy.

“Clinton is trying to put the spirit back in this country,” said Pompano Beach resident Rutledge. “That part (he said) about Japan feeling sorry for America--that really hit home.”

In other comments, Clinton’s selection of Gore appeared to be well-received, with some of those watching saying their impression of the Arkansas governor improved when he announced the pick last week. “When he named Al Gore, it all seemed to click,” said Mignon Sims, a 53-year-old teacher in Chicago.

For all the positive reaction to Clinton’s address, there remained signs of nagging concerns about him--concerns that reflect doubts that the Bush campaign will attempt to deepen in weeks to come.

For example, Rutledge says that, although he intends to vote for Clinton, he’s worried that the Democrat will raise taxes.

In fact, Clinton has called for big tax increases on corporations and upper-income families to fund his domestic initiatives--proposals that the GOP can be expected to hammer him with through the fall. Rutledge may be the kind of voter receptive to that argument.

“Some of Clinton’s ideas are good,” he said. “But like everyone else, I want to know: Where are you going to get the money? You can’t just raise taxes; taxes are smothering everybody.”

Concerns about Clinton’s personal life apparently have lost some of their edge since the spring; many of those who watched the speech said the allegations of infidelity and draft-dodging were irrelevant to them. But not everyone. Although impressed with Clinton’s speech--and unhappy with Bush--Fee of Huntington Beach was not sure Clinton addressed the concerns about his character: “I didn’t think his answers were very straightforward.”

Others said that with its long list of new initiatives, Clinton’s speech left them uncertain about his real priorities--and whether he could implement his plans as President.

One of those expressing such doubts was Jonathan Wolfe, 38, an entertainment industry accountant who currently is out of work.

Listening attentively to Clinton in a condominium close to the beach in Marina del Rey, Wolfe said: “Everything he is saying about what the needs are is probably close to true. But having a need, and being able to address the need are two different things.”

Times staff writers Tracy Shryer in Chicago, Ann Rovin in Denver, Amy Harmon in Detroit, Lianne Hart in Houston, Doug Shuit and Jack Cheevers in Los Angeles, Mark Landsbaum in Orange County and Doug Conner in Seattle contributed to this story. Also contributing were special correspondents Mike Clary in Miami, Gary Boulard in New Orleans, Ed Lane in New York and Anna Cekola in Orange County.