NEWS ANALYSIS : Clinton Takes a Risk, but He Has Little to Gain : Politics: If his Mexican rescue plan fails, he will be to blame. If it succeeds, not many will remember.

The collapse of his $40-billion Mexican rescue legislation has wedged President Clinton into a political corner: If his new plan fails, he will shoulder most of the political blame. If it succeeds, few voters are likely to remember.

Although he has been hailed by some as “the trade President,” Clinton may end up on this issue with neither the support of Main Street nor the respect of the business leaders and Establishment figures who have applauded his earlier trade initiatives.

Clinton was not the only political leader bruised by the proposal’s collapse, of course.

The Republican congressional leadership was embarrassed by its inability to muster the rank-and-file Republican votes it had promised for the plan. And those leaders may soon be under attack by their more protectionist colleagues in a party that has been increasingly split over trade issues.

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), now in pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination, lost no time Tuesday attacking the Clinton Administration’s new plan, even as his rival, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), defended it.

But Clinton’s neck was out farthest. And the setback is all the more bitter because of the way his Administration has made trade initiatives one of its signal accomplishments.

Clinton’s victories on the North American Free Trade Agreement and with the World Trade Organization showed that he would stand up for his convictions--even at the risk of alienating his trade-union base. Those successes also showed that he could prevail in a pitched legislative battle.

But this was the kind of test of strength that a President would be wise to avoid. Some allies believe that Clinton could have done better by offering Congress a fully formed rescue bill and bypassing any negotiation with the congressional leadership.

That was what President Ronald Reagan had done to get his tax-cut program through when it was clear that the Democratic leadership was more strongly opposed than many Democratic members.

Others, including some congressional Republicans, said they believe that Clinton’s team had done about all it could to promote the rescue plan, considering the intensity of protectionist feeling--and suspicions that the deal would mainly help Wall Street.

Yet even with warnings of global crisis and an all-star supporting cast of former presidents and countless economic experts, the Administration’s team could not get close enough to success to even risk a vote.

“I don’t know if I could have even rounded up the 68 Democrats who voted for NAFTA,” said Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), who was charged with vote-counting for the Democrats. “And the more we waited, the more votes we lost.”

Many in Washington’s governing class will take the plan’s failure as more proof that the weakened Administration is secondary to congressional Republicans in running the country.

The failure will “be taken as a sign of an Administration that doesn’t completely have its act together,” said Lawrence Chimerine, chief economist at the Economics Strategy Institute, a Washington think tank. “That isn’t completely fair, maybe, but that’s the way it will be taken.”

Pointing to polls showing Americans nearly 4 to 1 against a U.S. rescue, Administration officials said the new plan demonstrates that Clinton is willing to tackle unpopular issues. And the public, they argued, eventually will see that.

“This is the President showing determination,” one senior White House aide said. “He identified a problem, called Congress to action and--because they couldn’t act--he quickly said he still must move forward.”

Clinton’s arguments that congressional gridlock was to blame will clearly resonate for some. Yet he will now be on the receiving end of attacks from others in Congress for any perceived failings of the plan. And those attacks are likely to intensify, since any breakdown in the new plan cannot be blamed on Congress.

Even before the Administration had explained its new deal, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Tex.) was complaining that American taxpayers still are vulnerable and that Clinton’s alternative “bypassed Congress and the American people.”

Some analysts said they believe that with lingering resentment over NAFTA, anger at illegal immigration and Americans’ persistent economic anxieties, the issue may gain powerful momentum in the months ahead.

Yet while Clinton will surely take the heat if the deal falters--and especially so if taxpayer money is lost--the rescue effort is not likely to be long remembered if all goes well.

Stuart Rothenberg, a political analyst in Washington, said that a successful rescue plan probably would barely impinge on the public’s consciousness.

“These international economic issues are about as far from the average American’s consciousness as you can get,” he said.