I've read those same documents, and , IMNHO, their conclusions were flat-out wrong--methinks the Hoover Institute shaded things somewhat to hype the Red Menace (not that it actually needed any hyping; it's just that it's easier to make folks afraid of Commie troops landing on American shores instead of Commie warheads).
The USSR didn't care about a "legal surrender" by the President, nor did they care about keeping American industrial infrastructure intact. IF America reverted to barbarism and feudal, low-tech societies, then America would pose no threat whatsoever to Soviet postwar recovery and its future imperial ambitions.
Doesn't make a pinch of shiite's difference what you or I think - what mattered is what THEY thought.
And I'm telling what they thought. Had it gone to a nuclear exchange, the USSR would've engaged as many US military and CI targets as possible. Since most of those targets tend to be co-located with urban/industrial targets, even a "limited counterforce" attack would have inflicted enormous damage on US urban areas; a full countervalue attack would have done somewhat more damage, but most of the country wouldn't notice.
Clinton (either one) would surrender - to save the children, of course...
Assuming that (a) they s/he/it was still alive (not a certain bet, because of the profusion of "must hit" C3I targets in the National Capital Region), (b) that the C3I system (which, remember, has been targeted for destruction) could relay the surrender order to subordinate commanders, and (c) that those subordinate commanders, who've just had their families erased from the earth, thirsted for revenge, and would actually give a (bleep) what a draft dodger or his brood sow had just ordered.