Clinton’s Fascination With Kennedy Spurs Speculation : Presidency: Some observers say politics drives attempts to forge ties to former President. Others believe the motivation is personal.

It drew little special notice when Bill Clinton began citing John F. Kennedy during his campaign and only slightly more attention when Clinton wove allusions to the 35th President into the address and events of his inaugural.

But in the nine months since, Clinton’s effort to be identified with Kennedy has gone a good deal further: He has taken to quoting the late President often, has made pilgrimages to the sites of some of his greatest speeches and has surrounded himself with Kennedy kin and artifacts.

Today Clinton joins the extended Kennedy clan for the rededication of the John F. Kennedy Museum in Boston, and the President’s staff says he is considering whether to visit Berlin on the way to next year’s Moscow summit in order to speak on the anniversary of Kennedy’s famous “Ich Bin Ein Berliner” address.

Now what seemed routine presidential image-making seems to some a determined, even systematic effort to forge an association with the man popularly held to be the last successful Democrat in the Oval Office. This relentless interest has left even the Kennedys somewhat surprised--”pleasantly,” said Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.), the former President’s nephew.

It has also stirred speculation about what lies at the root of the fascination: whether it is the secret wellspring of Clinton’s presidential ambition, a means to teach himself about his impossible job or some sign that at bottom this strikingly self-confident Arkansan is groping for an identity of his own.

While political public relations seems only part of the agenda, the gestures have also raised questions about how much Clinton can cozy up to Kennedy before the public begins to wonder whether he is truly of the same mold--or simply a counterfeit.

*

“At some point, it could begin to look just, well, silly,” said Alan Brinkley, a presidential scholar at Columbia University.

Other presidents, of course, have sought to associate themselves with the glories of previous Oval Office occupants. As a college student, Franklin D. Roosevelt mimicked his cousin, President Theodore Roosevelt, by strutting about with a pince-nez, exclaiming: “Bully!” Later, he married T.R.’s niece, Eleanor Roosevelt.

Clinton’s fascination with Kennedy dates to 1963, when they met at a reception for teen-agers in the American Legion’s Boys’ Nation program. But some evidence suggests that his singular fondness has bloomed rather recently.

As governor of Arkansas, Clinton kept a bust of Kennedy in his office, but it was alongside busts of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, said Betsey Wright, who as Clinton’s chief of staff watched him bore through countless biographies of world leaders.

“He had a soft spot for Kennedy because he met him, but I never thought then it was adoration,” she said.

Today his admiration is highly visible. Earlier this month, Clinton delivered a major domestic-policy address at the University of North Carolina on the 30th anniversary of a Kennedy address; in the spring, he delivered his first major foreign policy speech at American University in Washington, where, 30 years earlier, Kennedy had delivered a speech.

Last week, amid the uproar of simultaneous crises in Somalia and Haiti, Clinton spent much of a 2 1/2-hour lunch dissecting Kennedy’s presidential style with writer Richard Reeves, author of a new book, “President Kennedy: A Profile of Power.”

“His identification with Kennedy is quite close,” Reeves said.

Stephen G. Wayne, presidential scholar at Georgetown University, said this identification may be partly for public consumption, but it also may be a source of personal strength and a sense of legitimacy--and perhaps even a key ingredient of Clinton’s personality.

*

The identification with an important figure may generate a drive that “can give (a leader) the energy to do what most people would not,” Wayne said. “You can say that people can be even possessed by this.”

Reeves acknowledged that Clinton’s assiduous cultivation of the Kennedy link raises the question of whether Clinton “knows who he is.” In his view, though, much of the interest stems from a narrower, more practical need--to find out how others did his impossibly difficult job.

Some analysts have wondered how much of a payoff there may be from an association with Kennedy, whose reputation has been attacked in recent books, including Reeves’, which found him charming, witty, self-centered, disorganized, and subject to manipulation by his staff.

Yet, in a finding that vexes historians--and may raise questions about the teaching of American history--polls show that most Americans consistently rate Kennedy as the “greatest” President.

Still, if the comparison is politically profitable for Clinton generally, in specifics the comparison between the two men is only partly flattering for Clinton.

The pairing evokes the youth and energy of the two presidents who followed what some have viewed as sleepier presidential administrations with calls for change and governmental activism.

But it also may serve as a reminder that both were so flexible in their negotiations that some members of Congress accused them of being easily “rolled.”

The two presidents also struggled with the military. Kennedy disliked some of the top brass, while Clinton has been repeatedly embarrassed because of some senior officers’ lack of respect for his policies and past.

Even political analysts who do not believe that Clinton has overdone his embrace of the late President nonetheless say they believe that he walks a fine line. They recall Gary Hart, a presidential candidate who set out to copy Kennedy’s gestures, clothing and haircut--and was ridiculed for it.

“You can’t afford to let it become a matter of derision among the chattering classes,” said James Pinkerton, a White House aide to President George Bush.