SHINGTON - On the day last week that Bill Bradley made his presidential campaign official, he pointedly noted that he would be a different kind of president from Al Gore. ''I think,'' he said, ''that flows from our life experience.''
But voters eyeing the two men may need more persuading.
This election season, Democrats will search in vain for clear-cut ideological differences between the two men vying for their party's presidential nomination. Bradley Democrats find it difficult to tell pollsters why they favor him over Gore, other than a vague desire for change. Looking at their records, it's hard to call one more conservative -- or more liberal -- than the other.
And their personal histories have more than a few parallels. When Gore and Bradley arrived in Congress in the late 1970s, both were young, independent Ivy League graduates with a sheen of celebrity and the tang of ambition. Even then, many predicted each would run for president one day.
They both became charter members of the centrist camp called ''New Democrats.'' Once a modest faction, the New Democrats now dominate the party.
Yet for all their similarities, Gore and Bradley have had revealing differences over the years. For two men marching in the same direction, they sometimes took different roads in Congress.
The Reagan Revolution of the 1980s -- with its debates over taxes and spending, nuclear arms, social issues, and US intervention in Central America -- was a particularly revealing test for Gore and Bradley, with a range of symbolic, politically charged votes. The impressions of their former colleagues, and an examination of the leadership roles taken by them in the crucible of Congress, may also give voters a basis on which to choose between them.
''The standard assumption -- that they are nearly identical -- misses the detail,'' said Eric Howser, Bradley's press secretary.
Gore, the son of a US senator from Tennessee, graduated from Harvard College, served in Vietnam, and arrived in the House of Representatives in 1977 before winning election to the Senate in 1985. Bradley, a banker's son from Missouri, was a star basketball player at Princeton University, a Rhodes scholar, and a workhorse forward for the National Basketball Association champion New York Knicks before his election to the Senate in 1978.
Gore made his mark in Congress immediately by using his family name, intelligence, and familiarity with the media (he wrote his undergraduate thesis on the impact of television on the presidency and had worked as a newspaper reporter) to escape the anonymity of the House. Bradley was just as driven, but in a different way. In the clubby Senate, Bradley impressed his colleagues with his patience and hard work, and the modest way he dealt with celebrity.
He made friends on both sides of the political divide. ''Bill would make a tremendous president,'' says Alan Simpson, the Republican former senator from Wyoming, who quickly notes that he is officially backing fellow Republican George W. Bush. Still, Bradley remains a ''very close friend,'' says Simpson, who is now director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Like Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, and other young Democrats, Gore and Bradley were spurred by political necessity in the 1980s to search for a ''third way'' that departed from the liberalism of the New Deal and Great Society without abandoning the party's traditional commitment to life's underdogs.
As New Democrats in Congress, Gore and Bradley recognized the importance of private-sector economic growth, individual responsibility, work over welfare, an end to the neo-isolationism of the post-Vietnam era, and the need for a streamlined government.
''The most important thing about them is that on the big issues that faced the Democratic Party - the big paradigm shifts - they have both been on the right side,'' said Al From, the president of the Democratic Leadership Council, the leading New Democrat organization.
Though they qualify as pioneers, neither Gore nor Bradley was a flamboyant maverick during his years in Congress.
''They were progressive thinkers on many issues but, as opposed to me, they were more cautious,'' said Hart, the former US senator from Colorado. ''They played the game more - in terms of style - and were more constituency- and interest-oriented. I made a point of bucking the interest groups. They were more reluctant.''
The New Democrats' sense of urgency was fueled by the tax revolt of 1978 and Ronald Reagan's landslide elections in 1980 and 1984. In 1981, Gore and Bradley were confronted by Reagan's then-popular plans to cut the federal budget and dramatically slash taxes.
Gore followed House Speaker Thomas P. ''Tip'' O'Neill's liberal lead and voted against all of Reagan's important tax and budget cuts in 1981. Bradley, however, took a more moderate stand shared by only one other Democrat (Ernest Hollings of South Carolina) in the Senate. Alarmed at the prospect of a multibillion-dollar budget deficit, Bradley voted for the Reagan budget cuts but against the Reagan tax cuts.
Stylistically, Gore and Bradley impressed their colleagues in Congress with an ability to select a complex, difficult issue and then diligently master it.
Gore's signature effort was in the Cold War debate over strategic nuclear weapons. During the Reagan years, Gore and a group of like-minded centrists struck a successful deal with the White House to deploy a limited number of the ''MX'' multiple-warhead missiles the administration wanted in return for research and development of a less-destabilizing single-warhead missile. Bradley and many liberal Democrats did not support the compromise. Gore also supported further production of the B-2 bomber, which Bradley opposed.
In Bradley's case, the signature issue was tax reform. He patiently nurtured the legislation for years, working the back rooms and honing details, before it passed and became law in 1986: plugging loopholes and cutting tax rates for all economic classes.
''I'm a Gore man. ... I've known him for a long time,'' said David Pryor of Arkansas, a former Senate Democratic colleague and supporter of the vice president's candidacy who believes the two rivals share important qualities. ''I have real respect, as should the vice president, for Bill Bradley's intellect and focus. Bradley is the kind of campaigner that you may not know what he is doing every day, but you better be sure he is doing something. He's out there practicing, every day, on that court. Taking that one shot, over and over and over again, until he has it down.''
Each candidate has a notable flip-flop on his congressional record. Bradley made a celebrated shift from opposing, to endorsing, the Reagan administration's support of the Nicaraguan Contra army in 1986. Bradley rejoined the ranks of Contra foes after disclosures of the Iran-Contra affair the following year.
Gore never wavered in his opposition to the Contras, but changed his position on abortion. Early in the Reagan era, the Tennessee congressman opposed Medicaid coverage of abortions for poor women. After moving to the Senate, and preparing for the presidential race in 1988, Gore abandoned his previous position and began to vote for government payment for certain abortions. Bradley has been a steady backer of abortion rights, including Medicaid coverage for the procedure.
Perhaps no issue illustrates the fluidity of the New Democrat creed as does the debate over Reagan's so-called ''Star Wars'' strategic defense plan, during which the two senators switched their positions. Gore began as an opponent of the program, and Bradley a supporter. By the end of the Reagan era, Gore was leading centrist efforts to preserve the program, and Bradley had joined the liberal critics who wanted to cut it back.
Still, the many overlaps in Bradley and Gore's common political ancestry cast the Democratic primary as a contest of tactics, style, and nuance - and thus a problem is posed for both candidates.
Bradley has had difficulty finding philosophical differences with which to rally liberal activists, union members, and other primary voters. Both he and Gore favor free trade and embrace standard Democratic dogma on matters such as the environment, abortion rights, and civil rights.
The vice president, on the other hand, could be hurt if Democratic voters, wearied by the Clinton administration's scandals and perceiving no great ideological distinction between the candidates, simply opt for a fresher face. Bradley isn't burdened with the administration's ''baggage'' and has more ''spontaneity,'' said former US Representative Michael Harrington of Salem, a Bradley supporter.
In the end, both are considered a credit to their party, partners in Democrats' struggle to find a new model.
''They may not have always been sponsors of the same bill,'' From said, but both Gore and Bradley played important roles ''moving the party in a new direction.''
