It’s Only Natural for Gore to Embrace Clinton Record--With a Crucial Exception

No wonder President Clinton wants the American people to promote Al Gore.

Judging by the vice president’s campaign proposals and promises, a Gore presidency would look remarkably like Clinton III--minus the sizzle.

From reforming Social Security and providing seniors with prescription-drug coverage to reducing the national debt and curbing nuclear proliferation, Gore’s agenda is all but indistinguishable from Clinton’s.

Even on issues where the vice president is perceived as breaking from Clinton, Gore is actually embracing positions that the president has made clear he would have adopted had he been able to muster the political support. These include moving toward universal health insurance, expanding educational opportunities, banning discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military and restricting access to handguns.

Two Had Much in Common From Start

This unusual degree of harmonic convergence between Clinton and Gore is no accident.

Close in age and from neighboring states, the two already were in accord on many policy matters when Clinton chose Gore as his running mate in 1992. In the White House, this like-mindedness has only deepened, with Clinton adopting many of Gore’s ideas and vice versa, according to the vice president and his advisors.

“I have followed a simple principle during my years as vice president where new ideas are concerned: I don’t hoard them,” Gore said during one in a series of interviews in the past year.

“I decided early on that I would share [ideas] fully and completely with the president and try to make them work,” he said. “The advantage of that approach is that when you see how they work, how they need to be modified, you come up with even better ideas in the next generation of thought.”

The challenge Gore now faces is to link himself to Clinton on their poll-tested issues while distancing himself on a personal level from a scandal-tainted president.

White House aides said Clinton initially was angered when Gore, in his candidacy’s embryonic stages, stressed his disappointment over the president’s affair with Monica S. Lewinsky. But more recent comments indicate that Gore’s approach suits Clinton just fine.

At a convention of Florida Democrats in Orlando last month, Clinton paid this tribute to his understudy:

“I can tell you that in the history of the country, he is the most effective and influential vice president who has ever served. Now he’s got a lot of good ideas for the future too.”

To be sure, every vice president who seeks to follow the boss into the Oval Office faces a balancing act, as George Bush showed in 1988 by offering a “kinder, gentler” agenda after eight years under President Reagan.

For Gore, however, it’s been nothing less than a high-wire act.

All over Iowa and New Hampshire these past months, he has not hesitated to highlight the over-arching difference between himself and Clinton. As Gore put it in Des Moines in late December, in an opaque but unmistakable reference to the Lewinsky scandal:

“I would bring my own values of faith and family to the presidency. . . . One of my highest priorities is going to be to reshape all the policies of our country to try to emphasize the role of strong families.”

In nearly the same breath, however, Gore touted his service in the White House, reminding voters: “I know how to keep the prosperity going.”

The vice president often reminds voters of his tie-breaking vote as the Senate’s presiding officer in early 1993, putting Clinton’s economic plan over the top. “I’ve made a tremendous contribution to the economic policy that’s helped to produce this prosperity,” he said last month.

Despite the striking similarities in their agendas, Gore vows to make “revolutionary” changes, especially in public education, including access to preschool for all 4-year-olds.

But Clinton does not seem to mind the implications of Gore’s incessant talk of change.

“The question is not whether we are going to change--but how are we going to keep changing?” Clinton said at a recent Democratic fund-raiser.

Referring to the many presidential candidates clamoring for change, the president added: “Guess what? I agree with that.”

Elaine Kamarck, a senior Gore advisor, characterized the vice president’s campaign agenda as largely “unfinished business” from the Clinton years.

“Look, this was very much a partnership,” she said in an interview. “Just because something ends up in the president’s budget doesn’t mean it was a Clinton thing. So much of this has been a joint effort.”

Kamarck and other campaign aides noted that the administration’s spending initiatives for Head Start and after-school programs were Gore’s ideas.

Still, Kamarck acknowledged feeling “prickly” at the notion that a Gore presidency would be mainly an extension of Clinton’s administration.

“We’re sort of caught in half-incumbency. The problem with half-incumbency is that any ideas we had became Clinton ideas. Now, dragging them back as Gore ideas is difficult,” she said.

“But to the extent that our general framework is a centrist framework that looks at real issues and is quick to spot emerging issues--but is also careful with money--then yes, it’s in the mold of the Clinton administration.”

‘Gore Can Argue: “I’m Clean” ’

Independent analysts said no one should be surprised by Gore’s balancing act of tying himself to Clinton’s policies while distancing himself from the man.

“Because Gore has been so involved in the agenda-setting--not just in implementing it--it’s natural that he would want to carry out what is, in good part, his own agenda,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.

“For all of Clinton’s faults, I’d certainly choose to be Clinton III--with this golden economy and peace abroad,” he said. “The conditions are nearly perfect for a continuation of this administration. And Gore can argue: ‘I’m clean.’ ”