KEMP'S REMARKS PUT NEW TWIST ON DOLE'S EFFORT TO SLAM PRESIDENT.

Byline: Adam Nagourney The New York Times

Jack Kemp's declaration at the vice presidential debate that it would be ``beneath Bob Dole to go after anyone personally'' has crystallized a continuing disagreement over one of the last critical decisions for the Dole campaign: how hard Dole should strike at President Clinton in their final debate next week.

Kemp's categorical and prohibitive comments came on the same day that Dole telegraphed the opposite intention, suggesting that Clinton should expect some ``surprises'' at their debate Wednesday in San Diego.

Kemp's remarks also came at a time of growing distress among Republicans, in and outside the Dole campaign, that Dole had lost an opportunity in the last debate with his decorous handling of the president, evidenced by his failure to move in public opinion polls.

``When it's the bottom of the eighth, and you're three or four runs behind, you've got to start swinging for the fences,'' one of Dole's debate advisers said Thursday.

The adviser, like many other Dole advisers, were particularly upset at Kemp's remarks, which they predicted the White House would use to undercut Dole should he attack the president next week.

The adviser also complained that Dole was under particular pressure to strike at Clinton precisely because Kemp has declined to do so Wednesday. Attacking the opposition is a role traditionally left to vice presidential candidates.

``You have Kemp, who's a nice guy himself,'' the Dole adviser said. ``And Kemp goes out there last night and he's a powder puff and he doesn't take Clinton on. We don't have an attack dog.''

Since the last debate, Dole has repeatedly suggested that he will take on Clinton on a variety of ethical issues. Thursday, he declared: ``I'm running for president. I think the FBI files are fair game. I think the pardon is fair game.''

He was referring to pardons involving friends of the Clintons who have been convicted in the investigation of their Whitewater real estate dealings, and allegations of White House misuse of FBI personnel files.

But aides to Dole said Thursday evening that he had not arrived at a final decision. Throughout the campaign, Dole has been extremely difficult to predict, often suggesting one thing and then moving in a different direction. In this case, Dole, who was in Congress for 35 years, may be floating the concept of attacking the president as part of a strategy to gauge the backlash he might encounter.

Several senior advisers strongly oppose the idea, arguing that it would be politically ruinous for Dole to come across as overly belligerent in San Diego on Wednesday. And if history is any guide, Dole by next week might be inclined not to attack if his standing in the polls has not improved.

Other presidential candidates who have been in Dole's trailing position at this point in the campaign - notably Walter Mondale in 1984 - have sought not to turn negative, weighing their long-term reputations against a short-term shot at victory.

What's more, this debate is different than the one in Hartford, Conn., where the two men stood on stage with television commentator Jim Lehrer. Instead, Dole and Clinton will answer questions from an audience of citizens, a setting where the kind of personal attacks that many Republicans are urging on Dole could seem out of place.

``One gasp from the audience and we're clobbered,'' one adviser said.

Dole has mostly avoided raising such issues as Whitewater. That posture reflects an obvious assessment shared by both candidates of the political terrain this year: that voters don't like negative attacks. Both Clinton and Dole, accordingly, use similar language in arguing that the campaign should be free of personal assaults.