Backlash Against Attacks Puts Bradley in Tight Spot

A brewing backlash against Bill Bradley’s attacks on Al Gore’s ethics and honesty will likely intensify pressure on the former New Jersey senator to temper his assault--or even quit the Democratic race--if he loses today’s New Hampshire primary, party leaders indicate.

While Bradley shows no sign of abandoning the new offensive, his sharp words for the vice president are raising alarms among the party leaders, who worry the rhetoric will provide ammunition for the GOP should Gore become the nominee.

Those fears have generated a trickle of open criticism against of Bradley’s new tack that could widen into a flood if Gore wins tonight and places himself in a commanding position to seize the nomination.

Steve Rosenthal, political director of the AFL-CIO--the giant union federation backing Gore--said publicly what most other leading Democrats will, for now, only say privately: “If Gore wins New Hampshire, I think it’s very, very tough for Bradley to make the case that he can win the nomination. At that point the question is really whether he is just a spoiler. . . . If the campaign does go on, it really needs to have a different flavor.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Edward G. Rendell said he planned to contact both the Gore and Bradley campaigns after today’s vote “to see if we can get this back on issues.”

Rendell, the former mayor of Philadelphia, added: “It is healthy for Bradley and Gore to talk about what are the strengths of their own health care plan, or the weaknesses of their opponent’s. . . . When we get into personal attacks you can start imagining the videotape going and envision a Republican commercial in the fall.”

Bradley Appears Undaunted

There’s no sign such comments are dissuading Bradley--whose supporters say he is just responding to weeks of unfair attacks on his agenda from Gore. Sources say Bradley backers in Congress responded angrily Monday after House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), both Gore supporters, issued a joint statement Sunday urging Bradley to “abandon negative, personal attacks.”

Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), one of Bradley’s most ardent supporters, on Monday scorned their plea. “It really wasn’t an appeal from national party leaders,” he said, “It was a press release designed to increase the chances of the vice president’s success in the New Hampshire primary, which doesn’t help create the unity we’re going to need going into the general election.”

To underscore the point, Kerrey and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), another strong Bradley ally, held a news conference here Monday reiterating the Bradley camp’s charge that Gore had repeatedly bent the truth.

Bradley aides remain upbeat about their chances in New Hampshire, where they led in polls until only a few weeks ago. And regardless of the result here, they insist they will forge on, utilizing his still-formidable campaign treasury.

Still, for many Democratic officials, the nightmare scenario is that even if Bradley loses New Hampshire, he spends the next five weeks pounding home a negative message against Gore in such key general election battlegrounds as California, New York, Ohio and Georgia--all of which will hold their primaries on March 7, the date of the next Democratic contests after today.

“Let’s put it this way, it’s not in the best interests of the party for [Bradley] to do that,” said Iowa Democratic Party chairman Rob Tully, who is neutral in the race.

In the last week, Bradley has opened three lines of attack against Gore. One is that Gore has misrepresented his own and Bradley’s record, and thus could not be trusted as president.

Second, after downplaying the issue through 1999, Bradley has denounced the Clinton administration’s questionable fund-raising tactics in 1996 and warned that the issue could sink Gore in November. “Unless we clean up our own house,” Bradley said, “Republicans are going to clean that up for us, in the fall.”

Finally, Bradley has aired ads questioning Gore’s commitment to maintaining legalized abortion, citing congressional votes from earlier in his career in which Gore appeared to express anti-abortion views.

On that front, Bradley has drawn fire from abortion rights groups, who maintain no real difference exists between the two. But even some Gore sympathizers don’t criticize Bradley for raising the abortion issue, describing it as a legitimate policy area to debate--analogous to Gore’s denunciation of Bradley’s Senate votes for school vouchers. What’s really raising unease among many Democratic leaders are the ethical accusations Bradley is leveling against Gore.

“The vice president criticized Bradley’s health care plan, not Bradley himself,” said Tully, the Iowa chair. “But the arguments Bradley is making now against the vice president are personal attacks, and I think people understand the difference.”

Rendell, the national party chairman, said the turn in the race was “painful” for many Democrats because “we have an enormous amount of respect and admiration” for Bradley.

“No one is saying he should get out,” Rendell said. “He has every right to take his message into the big states, and he owes it to his supporters. But I would hope that there is a reevaluation of this whole thing, on both sides, starting Wednesday morning.”

Anita Dunn, Bradley’s communications director, gave little indication such a plea would change anything. She insisted Bradley wouldn’t temper his rhetoric until Gore does.

“For five months, Al Gore has been attacking Bill Bradley every day, and his supporters have obviously been silent,” she said. “What do you expect them to say when somebody finally calls Gore out on the campaign of distortions he’s been running? . . . Party regulars, what we on this campaign have often called entrenched power . . . of course will coalesce behind the candidate who doesn’t want to change things.”

Despite the tough talk, Bradley was a bit more restrained in his comments Monday. He continued to suggest Gore could not be trusted, but focused more on his vision for a “new politics.”

Today’s results may determine how long Bradley stays on the attack. If Bradley wins, or even comes close, he may conclude that the ethics offensive worked, given that most polls showed Gore with a clear lead here last week.

On the other hand, if Gore scores a solid win here, many party leaders hope Bradley would be reluctant to go down as the Democratic equivalent of Steve Forbes in the 1996 campaign--a spoiler who scarred the GOP’s eventual nominee, Bob Dole, with relentless personal attacks.

A Question of Whether Attacks Are Effective

Judith Hope, the Democratic state chairwoman in New York--a state where Bradley has some of his strongest support--said she does not think he has crossed the line toward inappropriate campaigning yet. But she added that questions will increase if Bradley loses New Hampshire and continues to challenge Gore’s honesty anyway.

A loss for Bradley today also could call into question the practical political benefit of assailing Gore. While Bradley’s offensive appears to have shored up his support among independents, it simultaneously may be alienating core Democrats. Given that trend, persistent attacks on Gore’s ethics could be even riskier for Bradley in other states where independents are a smaller part of the Democratic primary electorate, or are not eligible to vote in party primaries.

*

The Times’ Web site will have updates, photos and vote results from today’s New Hampshire primary: https://www.latimes.com/elect2000

*

More on Primary * LAST CHANCE--Presidential contenders descend on New Hampshire on the eve of the make-or-break primary. A16

* CENTER OF ATTENTION--Voters in Granite State play host not only to the presidential candidates but also to the ever-present media. A16

* MEMORY LANE--Past primaries have offered moments that have defined candidates. A16

* THE MONEY TRAIL--George W. Bush continues to flex his fund-raising muscles. A17