NEWS ANALYSIS : NAFTA Could Swing Power Clinton’s Way : Politics: For the trade pact to clear Congress, it would take a feat of White House strength. That kind of display could boost other presidential projects.

As it veers toward a showdown vote in Congress next week, the North American Free Trade Agreement has the Clinton Administration and its allies worrying about the high cost of a defeat that some strategists fear is all too likely.

Yet there is another scenario, too: A come-from-behind victory, if it can be engineered, would give Clinton a political windfall that could put a whole new complexion on his presidency.

In one stroke, some analysts and Clinton allies assert, the President could establish himself as a force to be reckoned with in Congress, strengthening his hand on health care, welfare reform and other key elements of his legislative agenda.

The trade agreement, in fact, might just offer Clinton the best opportunity of his young Administration to prove that he is, as billed, an independent kind of Democrat, unbeholden to organized labor and other traditional Democratic interest groups. Demonstrating that independence, in turn, would allow him to refashion his image as a leader who stands up for his beliefs--even against his friends--rather than one who compromises away his principles under pressure.

Clinton too often has been perceived as a leader of “political expediency, the compromise, the cave-in,” said Tony Coelho, a former California congressman. “If he wins, all of a sudden there’s a different signature.”

Of course, even Clinton has acknowledged the long odds he faces in winning congressional ratification of the agreement, which would phase out remaining trade barriers between the United States, Mexico and Canada over 15 years.

As recently as Sunday, Clinton said that the White House remains about 30 votes shy of the 218 needed when the House takes up the legislation to implement the accord. White House officials are hopeful that they will pick up votes if Vice President Al Gore gets the better of Texas billionaire Ross Perot in a debate to be broadcast nationwide on CNN’s “Larry King Live” program tonight. But even if that occurs, victory is far from assured.

Last year, Clinton was regarded as at best a lukewarm supporter of the free trade proposal, fearing the repercussions from labor groups who believe that its passage will set off an exodus of American companies to Mexico, where labor costs are lower.

The issue marks a rare moment in presidential history because of the way it has isolated Clinton from the labor, environmental and minority interests that make up so much of his power base. That isolation was evident Sunday, when Clinton denounced what he characterized as the “roughshod, muscle-bound tactics” employed by organized labor against members of Congress to keep them from supporting the agreement.

The last time a President was so clearly at odds with his party’s traditional constituencies may have been in 1971, when Richard Nixon shocked Republican orthodoxy by imposing wage and price controls in an effort to combat inflation.

It is the opposition of traditional Democratic interests that gives the trade pact its political twist. Some strategists believe that Clinton’s support sends a strong statement to non-union, middle-class voters that--unlike many Democratic politicians--the President is not beholden to organized labor. The point is similar to the one Clinton made during the campaign when he took on Sister Souljah, the rap singer, for her espousal of violence, a move that angered many black supporters.

“It’s a symbolic point but one that gives potency to all the talk about ‘new Democrats,” said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster and consultant.

Of course, the issue’s potential payoff could become a huge liability if Clinton loses the House ratification vote scheduled for Nov. 17. And even if he wins, there are risks.

If the trade agreement is ratified, Clinton would have to overcome the ill feelings that the battle has aroused within his electoral base and among congressional allies. Labor, however, still has good reason to want to patch things up: It badly wants health care reform, a higher minimum wage and other measures that Clinton can help it win.

A defeat would weaken Clinton in Congress, perhaps forcing him to yield more in compromises on health care and other issues. By signaling American hesitation on free trade, it could endanger pending negotiations over the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and U.S.-Japan trade relations.

In defeat or victory, the vote will test Clinton’s congressional strength as perhaps only the budget bill has done to date. The heavily amended economic package slid through by a one-vote margin.

If it does succeed, the agreement is also likely to win ratification by a very narrow margin. But in light of the congressional might arrayed against it, it will show that Clinton “is a guy who can deliver on the hard ones,” said one Republican congressional aide.

A victory would not be likely to generate a lot of votes for Clinton in 1996. NAFTA’s benefits are not expected to be highly visible, and voters weighing Clinton’s efforts for economic growth are likely to attach more importance to the budget bill.

Instead, the benefits to Clinton would be more indirect, such as a more favorable perception of his leadership qualities.

A winning vote would offer short-term political dividends. It would close out Clinton’s first year on a high note after a dreary string of reverses, including the foreign affairs muddles of Somalia and Haiti. It would fortify the Administration’s claim to a credible overall record on foreign affairs.

And as a joint victory with Republican allies, it would boost the Administration’s claim to bipartisanship, which has become important as the White House tries to lure Republicans into a coalition for health care reform.