Part of the appeal of both George W. Bush and Bill Bradley as candidates for president is that they don't seem to want it all that badly. Americans are suckers for the myth of Cincinnatus: the leader who accepts power only reluctantly.

Of course no one really runs for president out of humility. Our election process is so arduous, and the odds of triumph are so low, that no one would endure it except out of some combination of self-obsession and self-delusion. Certainly the leading candidates (except Pat Buchanan) aren't motivated by ideology. They may have positions--they certainly have position papers--and they may even have beliefs, but these can't be what they're in it for.

Still, seeming not to want it desperately is useful, and especially important to Bush and Bradley. In George W.'s case, it's part of his jovial laid-back image. A generation further along, the Bushes are either actually getting less patrician or they're getting better at faking it. No self-conscious babbling about pork rinds from George W. He's just a regular fella who'd rather watch football on the tube than discuss policy any day. It's "Message: I don't care" turned into a plus.

For Bradley, the appeal is almost exactly the opposite. He gives his enthusiasts the impression of being almost too thoughtful to be president. Like Gary Hart of yore, he is the candidate of ideas (although, also like Hart, it is more the idea of ideas than any particular ideas themselves). In 1992, Bradley didn't run, though his party begged him to, because his inner clock wasn't ready. Bill Clinton, whose clock is always ready, ran and won. I think this speaks well for Clinton and poorly for Bradley, but many disagree. They feel it shows that Bradley is not just another scheming pol. Because he's not desperate to win, and because he's thoughtful, he can speak the truth.

These amorphous impressions are important to Bradley because one important truth neither he nor Al Gore is emphasizing at the moment--and neither is the press, for obvious reasons--is that they are remarkably similar. Both are moderate Democrats (though Bradley is feinting left at the moment). Both are former senators. Both are in their 50s. Both are tall and regarded as stiff and dull. Both are from privileged backgrounds, which both--in honor of another bit of democratic sentimentality--are trying to disown (Gore by emphasizing the Tennessee aspect over the Washington aspect of his childhood as a senator's son; Bradley by making a big deal about growing up in a small town where--as he doesn't emphasize--his father was president of a bank). Both also have had privileged political careers, floating into the Senate on celebrity or lineage, and both seem better suited to being selected by boards of admiring elders than to the grungy business of running for office.

So Bradley must treasure and promote the idea that he is the no-bullshit outsider running against "the vice president," as he always refers to Gore. A reputation for honesty is useful, if not essential, to any politician--especially in this post-Clinton election--but for Bradley it's vital. If he's not the truth-teller, he's got little to offer. With that in mind, what do you make of the following exchange on Larry King Live last week?

KING: OK. The switch on ethanol, which you once called highway robbery, was this political for Iowa?

BRADLEY: You know, I represented New Jersey, tried to do the best job I could. The ethanol subsidy meant New Jersey taxpayers paid higher tax for their gasoline. It also meant that it was more difficult for us to meet our clean air standards. That's why I oppose it. I also didn't like the fact that two-thirds of the benefit went to one corporation. I didn't support corporate welfare.

And that was when I was a United States senator from New Jersey. I am now running for president of the United States. Part of running for president of the United States is getting to know the country in a depth that you didn't before. Agricultural economics I didn't know much about.

I spent a lot of time talking to Iowa farmers since January. And the problem and crisis in the family farm is real. And I sat with enough of them to know that the ethanol part of their overall cost statement was an important part, and therefore, I believe that it was a reasonable thing to do.