ittle more than a month ago, US Sen. Edward M. Kennedy told one associate that he planned to endorse Vice President Al Gore for the Democratic presidential nomination. The senator's aides, and Gore's too, have sent strong signals to the same effect.
Two nights ago in Nashville, Gore's top aides said Kennedy's sought-after official blessing was expected soon.
But yesterday, Kennedy said that right now he has no plans to endorse anyone. And if he does decide to back a candidate, Kennedy added, he'll consider former senator Bill Bradley as well as Gore.
Given Bradley's unexpectedly strong challenge, was Kennedy hedging his bets? Was it a case of the senior Massachusetts senator's sometimes uncertain syntax? Or was Kennedy simply trying to sidestep the issue so he wouldn't drain the drama and impact out of an endorsement that has already been arranged?
Whatever his intent, Kennedy left the clear impression during an interview with Globe editors and reporters that, like a lot of rank-and-file Democrats, he's weighing his options in a contest that has become quite competitive. Or perhaps, like a lot of fellow officeholders, he thinks there's nothing to gain by choosing sides in a contest with no assured outcome.
Kennedy reinforced that impression by noting that Bradley has become a ''serious candidate'' with growing appeal to the electorate. And whether by design or omission, Kennedy didn't volunteer much praise for Gore, except to say that, ''as gifted and talented'' as Gore is, he's not very good on television.
Advisers to both Kennedy and Gore, asked to parse Kennedy's remarks, said they believe that nothing much has changed and that the party's liberal icon is still likely to stand by Gore when the moment is right.
Yesterday was not that moment.
Asked if he plans to endorse Gore, Kennedy said he's giving it some thought. ''But I have no current plans,'' he added.
After explaining that he has been preoccupied with Senate business and his own reelection campaign, Kennedy said he just had not had time to deal with the issue of endorsement.
Does that mean, he was asked, that he might not endorse either man before the Feb. 1 New Hampshire primary?
Kennedy's reply: ''Might not. I'm going to give it some thought over the holiday period.''
Bradley, he explained, ''has sort of captured some of the imagination of the public,'' citing Bradley's outsider image, his Rhodes scholar credentials and his basketball career.
In every pass at the topic of endorsements, the senator was nothing if not uncertain:
Question: ''At this moment, you don't plan to endorse in the Democratic primaries?''
Kennedy: ''Right.''
Question: ''If you do endorse, might you consider endorsing Bradley?''
''If I'm going to endorse, of course I'm going to consider both candidates,'' he replied.
Only one thing was certain: Kennedy's determination to leave all of his options open.
Shortly after Kennedy departed, he called a Globe editor to add a further thought on the endorsement issue. With the exception of former presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and Paul Tsongas, both of Massachusetts, Kennedy said he has never endorsed a Democratic primary candidate before the party convention. The convention opens in Los Angeles Aug. 14.
Scot Lehigh and Jill Zuckman of the Globe Staff contributed to this report.
