Presidential Campaign Skirmish Erupts

MANCHESTER, N.H. — The first skirmish of the next Democratic presidential campaign broke out Tuesday, with Vice President Al Gore barnstorming through New Hampshire to loyally defend President Clinton while House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt harshly attacked the administration’s trade policy toward China.

Gore, the clear front-runner to capture his party’s presidential nod in 2000, trumpeted the virtues of Clinton economic policies that have come under fire from party liberals, notably Gephardt. “I choose to defend the president’s policies not only because I agree with them . . . but because the Clinton-Gore approach has been good for this country,” he said at a news conference here.

But even as Gore rushed to the budgetary barricades on behalf of his president--and his own prospective candidacy--Gephardt attacked on another front. Using the prestigious Detroit Economic Club as a forum, the Missourian announced his opposition to Clinton’s goal of renewing China’s most-favored-nation trade status. And he did so in terms even more forceful than he used in denouncing last week the balanced-budget agreement Clinton has reached with the GOP-led Congress.

Gephardt, currently viewed as Gore’s chief rival in the 2000 race, challenged Clinton’s argument that “constructive engagement” through the economic sphere will help moderate Chinese leaders. Instead, staking out the lofty ground of human rights for himself, Gephardt condemned the administration’s approach as “appeasement” of “tyranny.”

He added: “If we are to have any credibility among those who believe in America’s promise, we must put our money where our mouth is.”

Gore conceded that neither he nor Clinton is satisfied with China’s progress on human rights. “But what they chose to do is not entirely within our control,” he said at his news conference. To influence the Chinese, Gore said, the administration has chosen the course of “challenging their record and behavior on human rights, while at the same time pulling them toward the mainstream economy of the world.”

But for all the disagreement about human rights, it is economics that remains the main bone of contention between Gore and Gephardt.

Though he framed his opposition to Clinton’s trade policy with China mainly on moral grounds, Gephardt made a point of citing potential economic drawbacks. “There is nothing free about our trade with China--it comes to us at great cost and little benefit,” he said, noting that the U.S. trade deficit with China had risen tenfold between 1989 and 1994 and is projected to grow to $50 billion this year.

Gephardt, who along with Gore unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination in 1988, also questioned China’s credibility in adhering to accepted international economic practices. “Those who would drench Tiananmen Square with blood do not blanch at shredding a commercial or international obligation,” he said.

Gore, for his part, pointed with pride to the continued vigor of the nation’s economic recovery as vindication of such Clinton policies as expanding trade, increasing investment in education and technology and reducing the deficit. While not mentioning Gephardt, he appeared to have his potential foe in mind as he warned of threats to the prosperity that helped New Hampshire recover from severe economic troubles in the early 1990s.

“Believe it or not, there is still a debate about whether we should continue” the administration’s policies, Gore told the Nashua Chamber of Commerce dinner Tuesday night. He warned that such critics “would push New Hampshire and the nation off course. We need your help to keep prosperity on track.”

Times staff writer Don Nauss contributed to this story from Detroit.