Gore Rides Bradley's Presidential Waves

What was the significance of Bill Bradley's run, and what does his pullout mean for the Democratic Party and the general election? Bradley ran to the left of Al Gore '69, appealing to the more traditional Democratic Party constituencies. Centering his platform around liberal themes, like universal health care and an activist approach to race relations, Bradley hoped to galvanize support amongst Democrats and independents to unseat Washington-establishment candidate Gore.

And for a while, it worked. Although Bradley was not considerably more exciting or attractive, many of his ideas resonated with Democratic voters, and his authenticity seemed a far cry from the forced smiles and awkward Macarena dances of the creator of the Internet. By November, Bradley was on par with Gore in New Hampshire, and the media had criticized the Vice president's lack of campaign focus.

The tide soon turned, however, and three factors helped Gore smother Bradley: Money, media and the machine. Gore's ad campaign exposed Bradley's conservative Senate voting record and contested his position on nearly every major issue. The media effectively ignored Bradley during the heat of primary season because of firebrand John McCain--who also took a chunk of the independent vote with him. And the continual whoosh of endorsements in every state from elected officials--from town crier to state senator--made Gore seem invincible. Especially because Gore has been running since 1996, it was only natural that he had built a list of eager endorsers--especially when it could mean political favors in a Gore presidency.

Which brings us to political reality. In a primary where the handpicked successor of a popular two-term president was the front-runner, Bill Bradley had to show how different he was--personally and politically. The only way he could do that was by running to the left of the Vice president. But by doing so, he removed himself from the main-stream and eliminated his chances of winning the general election--which is ultimately what Democratic voters, just like Republican voters, want to see.

As Clinton's 1992 and 1996 elections show, the death of liberalism--at the national level--is imminent. Although Gore temporarily appeased liberal support groups--especially the AFL-CIO, which provided him with the key endorsement--he will have to ditch ideas about eliminating the internal combustion engine if he wants to win in November, and continue the pragmatic "third-way" sought by his predecessor.

--Vasant M. Kamath