CURRENT EVENTS UPDATE

The way Bradley and Gore see it, the primaries offer a clear choiceÐthe Washington bunker, as Bradley calls it, vs. the ivory tower. Bradley says that after two terms in the Clinton Administration, Gore has become one of those politicians who "stay too long and fight too much." But Gore is proud of his bunker. He's pleased to be a gladiator in the arena tooÐa pro who knows how to get the job done, who didn't leave town but stuck around to fight Newt GingrichÐbecause "the presidency is not an academic exercise or seminar; it's a daily fight." He dismisses Bradley's "maximalist measures" as having no chance of becoming law in the real world. Bradley's rejoinder: "The Democratic Party should be thinking big things with big ambitions .... Where would the country be today if Franklin Roosevelt said Social Security's too difficult to do?"

With a few exceptions, their policy differences tend to be minorÐa nuance here, an incremental step there, with Bradley generally wanting to go a bit further to the left than Gore and calling himself "bold" and his rival "timid" because of it. Both support abortion rights, free trade and gays in the military; on gun control, both would limit purchases to one a month and close the gun-show loophole by requiring background checks, though Bradley would also require that every gun be licensed and registered. ("Doesn't have a prayer of ever becoming law," sniffs Gore.) On campaign finance, both want to ban soft money, curb issue-advocacy attacks and provide free broadcast time, and at different points, both have advocated public financing of elections. On education, both want more teachers, Internet access and preschool and after-school programs, but Bradley calls for fully funding Head Start while Gore offers bite-size ideas like salary bumps to good teachers and discipline codes to be signed by parents and teachers. To battle child poverty, both want to raise the minimum wage, ease the marriage penalty on the working poor and let welfare mothers receive child support. But Bradley wants to beef up child-care block grants and index the minimum wage against inflation as well.

Health care is the most dramatic policy difference between them. Gore would build on existing programs to cover uninsured children, extending benefits to 88% of Americans. He claims his plan represents a "first step" toward universal coverage, but his 10-year budget contains no money for a second step. Bradley's plan promises near universal coverage right away and subsidizes the middle class as well, which is why it costs so much ($65 billion to $100 billion a year, depending on whose experts you believe). Gore calls the proposal "risky" because its payments might not be enough to let the poor buy health insurance. And he says it would leave no money to shore up Medicare, which is due to go bust in 15 years. Gore paints himself as the bold one, saying it's gutsier to pursue and protect many policies at once, in the manner of L.B.J. and J.F.K. Last week in New Hampshire, Bradley introduced an ad that wraps him in the mantle of risk. "People accuse me of offering big ideas that they say are risky," he tells the camera. "I say the real risk is...doing nothing."

Questions

1. Compare and contrast the vision of presidential leadership that Bill Bradley and Al Gore present.
2. Analyze the poll data on page 16. What conclusions can you draw about the candidates' strengths and the status of the campaign?