Trying to find substantive differences between the two candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley and Vice President Al Gore '69, is not easy. Democratic voters heading to the polls in New Hampshire next Tuesday and across the country in the coming months have a choice between two tall, balding, politically moderate, Ivy-educated white men. The two had essentially identical voting records in their time in the Senate together, and their positions on the vast majority of issues are indistinguishable. Both support abortion rights; both are environmentalists; both support free trade. Both support campaign finance reform and gun control. And, in line with the post-Bill Clinton orthodoxy of the "new" Democratic Party, both support the death penalty and oppose gay marriage.

Given their similarities, it is little surprise the Democratic race to this point has been so heavily dominated by discussion of the two candidates' image and "electability." But this is unfortunate. On two of the most important issues facing the nation in the coming years--health care and education--Bradley and Gore have put forward substantially different proposals. We are confident that between the two, Bradley is the right choice for the Democratic nomination.

Currently, about one in six Americans, including 11 million children, have no health insurance. Bradley's bold $65 billion health care plan would ensure near-universal and affordable coverage. Low- and middle-income families would enjoy subsidized premiums and all families would see a tax break for premiums. Bradley would expand Medicare, adding benefits for non-routine prescription drugs and increasing housing and transportation aid to the elderly.

Bradley's "leave-it-to-individual-communities" approach to public education would allow each school to use federal dollars in the way they saw most efficient and useful. As a senator, he has voted in favor of voucher programs on an experimental basis. Although the merits of vouchers are still inconclusive, Bradley has displayed a willingness to try out new ways of improving our public schools. In addition, recognizing the implications of our current teacher shortage, Bradley has vowed to forgive student loans for 60,000 college students, high-school graduates and mid-career professionals who certify as teachers and commit to serving in poor urban or rural schools.

Beyond health care and education, Bradley has also put forward a bold and intelligent proposal on gun control, calling for mandatory licenses for handgun buyers and supporting a ban on "Saturday night specials."

To voters, Bradley is best known for his outspokenness on campaign finance reform. Certainly, this is refreshing, particularly in an era where political campaigns can be dominated by unlimited inflows of "soft money"--about $250 million in 1996. Bradley would ban soft money to national parties and prohibit state party committees from spending their soft money to influence federal elections. Additionally, Bradley has vowed to increase taxpayer financing of elections and require all broadcasters to give candidates free time. Such moves would help to make federal elections more about ideas and less about money, reinvigorating our currently impoverished level political discourse.

That is not to say we are entirely comfortable with the former senator. Many of the positions he shares with Gore--his support for the death penalty, his opposition to gay marriage--disappoint us. But his refusal to follow all other candidates, Democratic and Republican, in supporting the Kansas State Board of Education's decision to teach creationism is encouraging, as is his unique refusal to discuss his private religious faith publicly. On balance we feel that he is the best candidate for the Democrats.

In the Republican primary, we choose former Arizona senator John S. McCain without reservation. While we naturally disagree with many of his conservative social positions, he is hands down the most impressive candidate that the GOP has fielded in the past ten years.

McCain's frank attitude and independent perspective have won our affections. No Republican has presented a more sensible tax cut plan, small enough to avoid pushing the government into future deficits. No Republican has presented a more sensible approach to reforming the military. No Republican has been more willing to speak out against the party's corporate benefactors in the tobacco industry. No other candidate--of either party--has had the audacity to go to Iowa and rightly speak out against ethanol subsidies.

McCain's commitment to salvaging the political process form the pernicious influence of monied special interests has been inspiring. For years he has fought the good fight in the Senate, working with Democrats and alienating the leadership of his own party. His commitment to the common good, even at the expense of his own political fortunes, is extraordinarily refreshing.

In the post-Clinton era, how nice it would be to see a national leader emerge of McCain's evident integrity. While he faces an enormous obstacle in the form of George W. Bush, intellectual light-weight and financial Mighty Mouse, we hope that McCain can somehow overcome. The Republican voters of New Hampshire can do the nation a great service by casting their votes for McCain, keeping his candidacy and his message alive for at least another round.

If there is any way to insure that future presidential elections will offer the American people greater hope for their future, it is through serious campaign finance reform. We hope that a victory for Bradley and McCain will keep this issue in the spotlight.

A Democratic Alternative

While Bradley positions himself as a leftist alternative for Democratic primary voters, Gore's proposals and his record after seven years in office speak for themselves. Bradley's liberal rhetoric has captivated the national media but won't hold up against Republican opposition and independent skepticism. Gore's more pragmatic approach and his deftness as a political leader make him a better choice for Democrats.

After his boss tried to reform health care in 1993, Gore learned the lesson that an expensive, ill-defined plan is less appealing than a practical, targeted one. Gore's sensible proposal for health insurance would focus on covering children and working families, two groups with the greatest need for immediate action. Bradley wants to take another crack at universal health coverage, a laudable principle without a prayer of passing Congress. He counts on market forces to make up the difference for the poor while scrapping the safety net of Medicaid. Gore's cheaper, more incremental approach makes political sense. Democrats shouldn't make the same mistake twice.

The vice president's record on issues of importance to black voters also stands out for praise. Bradley should be commended for making racial unity a centerpiece of his campaign. But actions speak louder than words: The Clinton-Gore administration has repeatedly stepped out to defend affirmative action from assaults by Republicans. Bradley's views may have been shaped by his black teammates on the New York Knicks, but not enough for him to lead the fight for major civil rights legislation while he was a senator, apparently. No wonder Gore's support among black voters seems unshakable.

Both Democratic candidates have their strengths, but Gore, one of the most influential vice presidents in history, has demonstrated a better track record on core Democratic issues. He deserves his party's nomination.

--Adam A. Sofen '01