A LOOK AHEAD: Blame it on a flawed financial plan or even Monica Lewinsky, but Washington insiders are saying that . . . L.A.’s Bid for Democratic Convention Is in Trouble

Less than a month ago, the 2000 Democratic National Convention was Los Angeles’ to lose.

The city’s bid included the promise of a spanking new sports arena and the lure of the nation’s biggest block of electoral votes. Even Los Angeles’ competitors, Denver and Boston, acknowledged that they faced an uphill fight.

Today, all that remains true, but insiders now say a potent mixture of money and ego has thrown up new obstacles to the city’s effort and even could result in Los Angeles being dropped from consideration.

In essence, the Democratic National Committee’s reservations about Los Angeles are in small part symbolic and, more seriously, financial. The symbolism is simple: No ranking Democrat can feel entirely comfortable about staging a national convention in Monica Lewinsky’s hometown.

The money is more complicated. Los Angeles’ convention bid actually exceeds those of its rivals in terms of overall financial commitment. But Denver and Boston are submitting bids backed by government money. Los Angeles’ bid comes from a private group with close ties to the government, but not from the city itself. For some, that raises the question of whether a private organization really can vouch for such things as beefed-up police services needed to control traffic and protect dignitaries.

“These guys are on the verge of blowing this thing,” one Washington source close to the selection process said in an interview. “There is a surprisingly high chance they will not get the convention. The people who are the selection committee experts left [Los Angeles] really ripped.”

Local leaders of the city’s effort downplay the current flap, which erupted during a site selection visit in early December, but they acknowledge that tensions are running high between the national and local officials. Some accuse the Democratic National Committee of trying to muscle Los Angeles into offering more money to secure the event, but even as they sneer at the committee for its bluster, they display their share of bravado, as well.

In interviews, some grumbled that the Democrats were negotiating from weakness, trying to extract more money from Los Angeles when their main alternative, Boston, is considered a politically stupid choice, since if there is one state in the country that can reliably be counted in the Democratic column, it is Massachusetts. Similarly, the Los Angeles officials discount Denver’s political appeal, since Colorado pales next to California as an electoral prize.

But almost no one denies that negotiations hit bottom in early December, when a group of Democrats came to Los Angeles to go over the city’s bid a line at a time. So testy was the session that it spilled over into what was supposed to be a social lunch at the downtown public library, and so angry were some of the negotiators that they skipped the meal altogether and headed back to Washington fuming.

They were not the only ones to leave mad. The Los Angeles negotiators were angry enough after their weekend clash that one of them, lawyer Bill Wardlaw, Mayor Richard Riordan’s closest confidant, called Vice President Gore’s office and urged aides there to lean on the DNC’s leadership.

“After that, tempers seemed to cool,” according to one of the Los Angeles convention leaders. “Things seemed to get back on track.”

That, however, depends on your perspective. A Washington source confirmed Wardlaw’s call to Gore’s office but said it did not have the intended effect.

“Hell, no,” he said. “Wardlaw called and proclaimed it all settled . . . but all of the issues still remain.”

In particular, that source said top DNC officials Roy Romer and Steve Grossman were growing increasingly unhappy with Los Angeles’ bid and have begun to harbor questions over whether the Democrats would be better off elsewhere in 2000.

Among those questions are doubts about the city government’s role in putting on the event and, more important, about the money that Los Angeles is prepared to pay for it.

Unlike the efforts being waged in Denver and Boston, the Los Angeles bid was submitted by a private group, LA Convention 2000. Modeled on the group that brought the profit-making Summer Olympics to the city in 1984, the private organization would work closely with the city--indeed, Wardlaw is a member of LA Convention 2000, Riordan’s closest friend and a local political kingmaker--but it, not the city, would be the formal host of the event.

That makes Los Angeles’ bid unorthodox, as even local officials acknowledge. Where they bristle, however, is over the national committee raising that complaint now. After all, LA Convention 2000 always has been the lead group in the city’s bid, and Los Angeles has continued to advance while other cities have been discarded.

What that seems to suggest is that the real complaints are elsewhere, and, in all likelihood, are about money and convenience.

On paper, Los Angeles’ bid is the highest of the three finalists, with cash and in-kind contributions of more than $35 million. Boston tops out at $32.4 million and Denver at $33.9 million. But Boston is emphasizing the relative ease of an East Coast convention, and Denver is highlighting its simpler transportation and other arrangements, in contrast to what would be a more spread-out Los Angeles affair.

There are subtler disadvantages to Los Angeles as well. To some, the city is freighted by Hollywood’s support for President Bill Clinton--support that does not play particularly well in the heartland--and its tourist attractions include such stops as Monica Lewinsky’s Brentwood home and the Buddhist temple that sits at the center of the party’s recent fundraising scandals.

By contrast, Boston and Denver are symbolically benign.

Asked last week to comment on Los Angeles’ prospects, DNC officials declined.

Contrast that with their comments on leaving Denver after their visit on Dec. 15.

“We are, quite candidly, coming out of here tremendously impressed and favorably disposed toward Denver,” site committee chief Joe Andrew told the Rocky Mountain News. “I can’t stress enough how well it went, how it exceeded everyone’s expectations. There wasn’t a single question we had that was not answered more than satisfactorily.”

Meanwhile, the rival cities are doing everything they can to take advantage of whatever discomfort exists with the Los Angeles proposal.

For one thing, they have zeroed in on the unconventional financing approach being used by Los Angeles and stoked DNC doubts about it. Denver and Boston both have the financial backing of their city and state governments, and they have encouraged Democratic fears that the lack of a formal municipal contract in Los Angeles could result in trouble down the road.

“I believe the Los Angeles proposal is soft,” one Boston booster told the Boston Globe.

Lucy McCoy, who is helping coordinate the Los Angeles bid, strongly denied that. She emphasized that in total dollars and cents, Los Angeles’ offer exceeds that of its competitors, and it comes with political advantages that neither of the other cities can match.

“It’s phenomenal what they’re going to get out of this,” she said. “From our standpoint, we’re responding to every single line item that they’ve requested.”

*

Newton reported from Los Angeles, Brownstein from Washington, D.C.