TRUMAN OR CLAY: WHICH BE HE?

We're approaching Cliffhanger III for the Clinton administration. The first one was the 1993 budget fight which was won by one vote. Then came NAFTA -- another squeaker. Impending Cliffhanger III is health care, and it may be the toughest battle of all.

The Clintons, both the President and the First Lady, have to decide whether to dig in and insist on nothing less than "universal" coverage (at best delayed to the next century) or accept a lesser goal in the spirit of practical political reality.

The original Clinton package -- alliances and all that -- is gone. What remains is Clinton's quest for universal coverage by whatever means Congress may concoct. Three bills reported to the Senate and House floors -- one in the Senate and two in the House -- get the President to his goal. One bill -- reported from the Senate Finance Committee -- falls short (95 percent of Americans covered by 2002).

What should the President do?

Take what you can get.

This is the pragmatic school of thought and it goes like this. The President can't do the impossible. There is no way to force Congress to accept universal coverage. Without employer mandates, there is no way to fund guaranteed care for everyone. You can tax cigarettes 'til you're blue in the face and tax high-cost insurance plans and still fall way short of paying for universal coverage. Simply put, the money isn't there.

Clinton can "declare victory" with 95 percent of Americans covered. He has moved the debate; he has forced the issue. Without his leadership, nothing would have been done and 37 million Americans would remain in the same plight.

The general assumption is that the Democrats will lose seats in both the House and Senate in November. This is the one and only chance for Clinton to get any kind of health bill before 1996. If Clinton doesn't make a deal now, what can he say to the American people in his '96 re-election campaign about failing to keep the principal promise of his presidency? He cannot come up empty-handed.

Dig in and fight 'til the death.

This is the idealist school of thought and it goes like this. Clinton is thought of more as a compromiser than a fighter. Be a fighter on this one. He has repeatedly declared "universal coverage" as being an unalterable goal. In his speech to Congress he stated that he would veto any bill that did not provide universal coverage. This is his "read my lips" pledge. Don't back off. Don't compromise. The public will admire you more as a fighter than for agreeing to a watered-down deal.

The Bob Dole factor. (BOOOOLd) Sen. Bob Dole may not be the most beloved member of the Senate, but for now he wins the "most adroit" award.

Dole would like a minimalist health care bill on his terms. He would like a bill in which he can claim the victory and force Clinton to begrudgingly accept it. He has no qualms about conducting a filibuster on the issue of employer mandates. On that question, he has 43 certain Republican votes and a couple of Democrats for good measure -- safely beyond the 41 needed to continue a filibuster.

Without employer mandates, universal coverage is gone. Clinton would then be down to the level of the Senate Finance Committee bill and would have to hold the 56 Democrats (including Republicanesque Richard Shelby of Alabama) and the four moderate Republicans, John Chaffee (R.I.), John Danforth (Mo.), David Durenberger (Minn.), and James Jeffords (Vt.) to eke out the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster.

As in the budget and NAFTA fights, Clinton is dealing with razor-thin margins. This time the end result might not be a total victory of universal health care, but a partial victory akin to "on the road to universal health care."

There will come a time in July when Clinton will have to sit down with the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and decide what is the best course for the country and his presidency: to pursue courageously mission impossible to its probable political grave or to give some ground and pursue mission possible to his desk for a signing ceremony. Harry Truman most likely would have chosen the former; Henry Clay the latter. Clinton will have to fashion himself as one or the other.

Thomas Eagleton, a former Democratic U.S. senator, now teaches at Washington University in St. Louis.