Ahem.

Disregard previous spin. Within hours, having counseled with Clinton in his hotel suite, the spin doctors were back in the lobby to handle the hordes of reporters cruising for “React.” Now the story was a little different. What a break that Perot was out of the race. Now there was a clean choice between change and stagnation. What a shrewd stroke that Clinton had picked Sen. Al Gore, a Southern moderate, as his running mate. Perot voters hated Bush; they’ll learn to love, or at least tolerate, the Democrats.

Feel free to be confused. Perot himself certainly was. He bowed out as a “candidate,” he said, because he could no longer envision a “clean win.” Then, after hearing the outrage and pleas of his volunteers he, too, changed course. He would remain on 25 state ballots and allow his “freedom fighter” volunteers to file petitions to qualify him for more. His forces would remain ready to gear up again if neither Bush nor Clinton made their case. “That’s the magic, Larry,” Perot told You Know Who on CNN. “We have a protest vote. And that could take one of the two of you”-Bush or Clinton-“through the tank.”

It was mostly bluster. To save face on “Larry King Live” if nothing else, Perot was grasping at the role of power broker: the Jesse Jackson of Texarkana. The real question now is, who benefits from his departure, Clinton or Bush? Where will scattering Perotians go? How will his retirement from his own crusade affect the larger dynamics of what is now a conventional two-man race with a billionaire asterisk?

The freshly congealed conventional wisdom holds that Clinton may be the man to finally break the Republican Electoral College “lock” and withstand the GOP’s attack machine. After all, he’s up 27 points over Bush in the NEWSWEEK Poll, the largest “bounce” any candidate has gotten from a convention. People are tired of attack politics, the argument goes. The Democrats have their best chance since 1976, when another Southerner, Jimmy Carter, rode to the White House on a wave of disgust with Washington.

But it’s not that simple. And behind their spin doctoring, the Clinton camp knows it. The bottom line: Perot’s departure made Clinton more vulnerable. Even the most successful Democratic convention in decades–a peaceful, unified display of middle-class economic rhetoric and new-age family values–can’t hide the fact. The race is tougher for Clinton without an active Ross Perot around to siphon votes from Bush and give protective cover to the Democrats.

In the short run, Clinton did benefit from Perot’s withdrawal. He and Gore enjoyed a bigger TV audience on the convention’s last night than they otherwise would have. Plenty of Perotians were tuning in. Before last week Clinton was competing against Perot for the privilege of leading the anti-Bush army. Now the NEWSWEEK Poll shows that, by a 2-1 margin, Perot’s remaining supporters-and there were lots of them-lean toward Clinton rather than Bush. Perot’s supporters swelled the size of Clinton’s lead, which is 10 points larger than the margin Michael Dukakis enjoyed-and blew.

So the good news for Clinton is that he now stands alone against Bush. It’s also the bad news. Perot’s presence had threatened to strip the gears of the GOP’s attack machine. “In a three-man race,” said one top Bush strategist, “you always have to worry that the voters you peel away from one opponent will just go to the other.” That concern literally had paralyzed GOP planning–so much so that campaign chairman Bob Teeter had never turned in an official strategy document. Now Bush is free to run a zero-sum game of “defining” a lone opponent, Clinton. The GOP began last week by unloading bundles of documents in New York that attacked Clinton’s Arkansas record and varying stands on issues. The more direct “character” assaults will come later. “It’s going to be bombs away,” predicted Democratic analyst Will Marshall. “They’ll unload, and they are past masters at making it work.”

The Electoral College math is far dicier with Perot out of the race, as even Clinton advisers admit. When he heard the news of Perot’s withdrawal, Florida Sen. Bob Graham couldn’t hide his dismay. By drawing off conservative white voters, especially in the South and West, Perot had made traditionally Republican states, including Florida, at least theoretically competitive. Now whole swatches of the nation-the Mountain, Plains and Cotton South states-are more likely to revert to their recent history of GOP loyalty. Democrats once again will have to try to win by carrying the coasts, the border states, a few Southern states and the industrial heartland, which Clinton and Gore set out to tour by bus the day after the convention. “It’s the same map we’ve had to deal with for years-and the results haven’t been good,” said Rick Sloan, a Democratic strategist. “You need all the breaks with a map like that, and that’s our problem.”

Choosing Gore made especially good sense in a three-way race. The Democrats figured that the Tennessee senator, with his cookie-baking wife and pro-growth views, had natural appeal to Perotians. Now it’s a slightly problematic choice. “A ticket of white Southern Baptists with mixed labor records doesn’t exactly help us in the Northern industrial states,” said one top Democrat from Illinois. Suburban votes remain the key in any presidential election, but there will be increased pressure on the Democrats to turn out their “traditional” support-minorities, what’s left of Big Labor-in states such as Illinois, Michigan and Ohio. “It’s going to be more important to energize our base, and this ticket has some distance to go to be able to do that,” said California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a former Jackson supporter.

Still, “Bill and Al” launched their excellent adventure with reasons for optimism. Their convention, as wholesome as an ad for milk, effectively countered the GOP’s long-running strategy of painting Democrats as morally and culturally marginal. It was also cheerfully, almost cloyingly, unified. The GOP, on the other hand, faces the prospect of a convention in Houston next month that could resemble Democratic gatherings of recent years: divided over an insoluble moral dilemma, in this case abortion. Ronald Reagan will give the keynote address and will crow about the collapse of communism. It’s not a message most voters care about these days.

The economy is what counts. In every poll and by every measure, Americans are fed up with the status quo–with an enervated economy, with gridlock in Washington, with Bush himself. Bush will pose as a striver for economic change, with Congress as the designated bulwark of the status quo. But Bush as Harry Truman will be a tough sell indeed. If there’s a do-nothing Congress, few Americans see Bush as a do-something president. “We have no doubt about which ticket will be seen as the one favoring change,” said Clinton campaign chairman Mickey Kantor. “That’s one part of the argument we don’t have to worry about.” On their buscapade, Clinton and Gore this week are wending their way along the Ohio River Valley, a region within reach of their own roots and with economic problems that Bush must answer for.

Youth and energy is key to the Democrats’ emotional argument. The all-baby-boomer ticket quickly developed into an appealing team, energetic yet serious. It was an image Clinton aides had hoped to project. Before the convention, impresario Harry Thomason studied tapes of the 1960 Kennedy convention. He evoked it at every stage, especially in Clinton’s; triumphant visit to the convention hall the night before his acceptance speech. Clinton’s camp was hoping to stake a claim beyond mere position papers. “Don’t discount the possibility of magic,” said Clinton media adviser Frank Greer.

Clinton is also well served by his own deep knowledge of past Democratic mistakes. Unlike Dukakis, he didn’t return to his gubernatorial duties after the convention. Unlike Dukakis, his aides will strike back the moment the GOP launches attacks. Sensing public impatience with “negative” campaigning, the Bush team will hold its advertising fire. The GOP plans to air only “positive” spots about Bush in the month before the Houston convention. “Even with Perot out we have to be careful not to re-enact the 1988 campaign,” said a top Bush adviser. “Our task is to give voters some reason to be confident again.”

But the GOP won’t hesitate to portray the Democratic ticket as an unacceptable risk: a callow pair. Clinton has an answer, and his name is Vice President Dan Quayle, no slouch in the callow department. The veep remains so lightly regarded by the American people that rumors persist–denied again last week-that Bush will consider dumping him.

The GOP’s most fundamental, and potentially damaging, attack line is this: beware, Clinton and Gore are just another pair of closet liberals, secretly eager to raise your taxes and spend your money. The Democrats’ answer is Clinton’s Kennedyesque “New Covenant” agenda. It focuses on what citizens can be encouraged to do for themselves–and contains only the faintest whiff of new taxes. Perot said last week that he was impressed by how far the Democrats had come in “revitalizing” themselves with that message. He said it was similar to his own.

If Clinton is to sell himself as the leader of an economic revival, he’ll need Perot’s help. Before Perot exited, polls showed that more Americans trusted him to deal with the economy than either Clinton or Bush. In unreleased position papers, Perot was preparing to offer some tough, “it won’t be pretty” medicine: a $500 billion whack at the federal budget over five years, cuts in entitlements, deep slices in the bureaucracy, combined with lower capital-gains taxes and higher gasoline taxes. It’s the kind of platform Clinton wouldn’t dare propose. But perhaps Perot and his “freedom fighters” can now pose as the collective conscience of mere politicians-even as Perot proved he was one himself.

PHOTO: ‘It’s going to be bombs away’: Bush at a picnic in Wyoming (SCOTT APPLEWHITE–AP) ..CN.-NEWSWEEK POLL

If the election were hold today, who would you vote for?

59% Clinton 32% Bush

Regardless of how you might vote, who do you think will win the election in November?

48% Clinton 36% Bush

Which candidate will benefit more from the Perot’s decision not to run?

59% Clinton 28% Bush

Is the Democratic Party doing a better or worse job than it has in the past of representing the political views of people like you?

64% Better 16% Worse

NEWSWEEK POLL, JULY 17, 1992