Bradley's Withering Insurgency
What seemed like a winning campaign just a few months ago is now almost hopelessly lost in the cacophony of the Republican primaries, reports CBS News' John Roberts. Bill Bradley, the reform-minded insurgent who held so much promise in the early going, is now relegated to also-ran status, a man whose surprising leap to the forefront is now a mere afterthought in a season of surprises.
Certainly John McCain’s strong performance in New Hampshire and Michigan sucked much of the oxygen out of Bradley’s insurgent campaign. Contrary to Bradley’s position that there is room for a reformer in each party, political analysts and strategists alike say there is room for only one per state and John McCain has usurped Bradley’s mantle of reform.
But some of those same strategists will argue that it’s not just McCain who pushed Bradley off the radar screen, it’s Al Gore and – to some extent – Bradley himself. At least one strategist I’ve talked with – who consults the Bradley campaign - believes that Bradley was never really a strong candidate. Gore was just weak. And as Gore found his footing with the move to Nashville – a new set of clothes and a new attitude – the law of gravity took over and Bradley began to sink below the tree line. Even Gore supporters feel for the man. They say he has a decent message and it’s not hard to see that his heart is in the right place. But he is being beaten by the experience of years, the perks of power, a campaign that knows how to make primary events look like the last days of a general election campaign. Add to that a simple case of bad luck that John McCain (a.k.a. Luke Skywalker) won his second light saber battle against Darth Bush in Michigan.
Candidates go into an election campaign knowing there’s a good chance they’re going to lose. And even if they do, they’re usually better off for the experience. Speaking fees increase, corporate boards come calling, name recognition buys influence in a way they didn’t have before. But for the campaign workers who suffer the endless weeks on the road, chronic sleep deprivation and the frustration of watching network television and reading the newspaper – not to mention this column – to find out how it’s all falling apart around them, there will be no speeches to give, no corporations to guide, and they’ll still have to sit in coach. Theirs will be a thanks for a job well done and a wistful tilt at the glory that might have been.
So now Bradley must decide how much further down the road he takes his dedicated crew. There is some speculation that he might drop out if he gets pummeled in Washington state’s non-binding ‘beauty contest’ primary. A better bet is that he goes through at least the first Super Tuesday (what some call Titanic Tuesday) on March 7th. After all, even though he trails by double digits in all but two states, he s on the ballot in all 15 and countless campaign workers have worked incredible hours just for that day. To pull out ahead of the primary would be more than a disappointment to them. In Seattle on Monday, speaking with this reporter, Bradley committed to staying in until March 7th, but added that he would need to rack up several wins – not just do well – to go on from there. Pressed if he would still be around on the second Super Tuesday, March 14th, Bradley sounded far less certain. Of course, there is always the possibility that Bradley does win a few and carries momentum into the 14th. Hedge those bets just in case.
But he’s dealing now, not just with declining polls, but with increased pressure from influential Democrats to pull out – or at the very least – back off on his attacks on Gore.
Bradley doesn’t seem comfortable with attack mode and it’s not what he entered the race to do. His objective was to elevate the debate. To get beyond ‘politics as usual’. To show the nation that politicians could stay above the fray, say what they believed and get elected. He has a point when it comes to questioning Gore on campaign finance irregularities in 1996 – point being that the Republicans are already talking about it. Gore may have to come up with much better answers than ‘no controlling legal authority’ (related to his making fundraising calls from the White House) and ‘I didn’t know that it was a fundraiser’ (regarding the Buddhist Temple controversy in Hacienda Heights, California) when either Bush or McCain turn up the heat. But his other attacks – on Gore’s abortion and gun control record - have been criticized as manufactured simply for the purpose of having something to attack. There aren’t many people – Democrat or Republican – who question Gore’s current commitment to abortion rights and gun control. Perhaps NARAL (the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) was playing politics in its first-ever primary endorsement of a candidate, but the Bradley campaign attack on NARAL for endorsing Gore was called petty even by Democrats who don’t necessarily support the VP . Bradley’s campaign did hold off from attacking Jim Brady when he endorsed Gore on the strength of his gun control proposals.
Some analysts believe Bradley made a critical error by trying to be competitive in Iowa – in a state where he was hardly known – instead of spending all his time and effort in New Hampshire. A win in New Hampshire (which seemed possible as of the middle of January) could have changed the entire landscape. But perhaps, in the end, Bradley fell victim to the inevitability factor that the ‘entrenched power’ he complains about usually creates. While they don’t necessarily win the general election, the history of politics in this country has proven very kind to vice presidents seeking ther party’s nomination.