DIANNE, PETE, JOHN & SISYPHUS FOR GOVERNOR : Uphill to Sacramento

There is a phenomenon in political campaigning I call “the Sisyphus factor.” Sisyphus, you may recall, was a character in Greek mythology condemned to roll a heavy stone up a hill, only to have it always roll down again.

A campaign is like that--except, as the summit approaches, the impact of events and ideas can catapult the rock over the top. Or it can cause the stone to roll back down again--crushing the candidate.

The Sisyphus factor is at work in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. (Sen. Pete Wilson, virtually unopposed for the Republican nomination, is waging a “stealth” campaign--raising money and staying out of sight). Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein have started the hard climb up the hill. The question is who will be catapulted and who will get crushed.

Both have chosen high-risk strategies. Van de Kamp was the Establishment front-runner. Then, trying to reposition himself as a populist reformer, he tied his candidacy to ballot initiatives on government ethics, the environment and crime.

Feinstein began the race plagued by lack of funds, organizational disarray and low identification. Then, hoping to influence polls and shake the money tree, she gambled on a media blitz aimed at areas outside her Northern California base.

The most recent Los Angeles Times poll shows Feinstein an astonishing 19 points ahead of Van de Kamp (and 11 in front of Wilson). The pundits have anointed Feinstein the new front-runner.

Has Van de Kamp’s strategy backfired, diverting needed money, energy and support from his governor’s race? Has Feinstein’s gamble catapulted her over the top? Despite all the hoopla and hand- ringing, it is too early to tell.

The polls have seesawed from the beginning. The numbers, as they say in the trade, are “soft.” With nearly three months to go, the June 5 primary is light years away in political time. Voters haven’t begun to focus.

Yes, there are indications that Van de Kamp may have erred with his initiative ploy. He timed those initiatives for the November ballot, perhaps assuming a quiet primary season in which to position himself for fall. Now, faced with tough primary opposition, he has to scrounge and spend already scarce contributions to make sure he is not embarrassed when the deadline for qualifying initiatives comes around.

He has made these initiatives a referendum on his candidacy. If they don’t make it to the ballot, that failure would be interpreted as repudiation of Van de Kamp’s leadership.

The Feinstein media strategy did what it was supposed to--establish name identification, move her up in the polls and break loose some money. But the “strategy” was only one spot, aired four months before the election. Voter attention-spans are short.

It worked because it allowed the little-known candidate to shape her own image and to “inoculate” herself against expected attacks. More important, when the Feinstein spot ran, it was the only campaign ad on the air. Even political nature abhors a vacuum.

Van de Kamp filled that vacuum last fall. After his flurry of initiative proposals and a summer as the only active candidate, he surged ahead in the polls. Now it is Feinstein’s turn. The election that was Van de Kamp’s to lose is clearly up for grabs.

Each contender is vulnerable. Wilson carries the baggage of an officeholder in a political season when contributions, gifts and honorariums showered upon incumbents have become suspect. Running for governor right after a costly battle for a U.S. Senate seat leaves Wilson suspect as a flighty politician. Or a greedy one.

In an election when government spending limits stir controversy, Feinstein appears vulnerable to charges of fiscal mismanagement. Current San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos is out campaigning for Van de Kamp, reminding voters that Feinstein left the city with a projected budget deficit of $180 million.

In a political season when crime continues to be an overarching voter concern, Van de Kamp carries perhaps the heaviest baggage--the 1981 Hillside Strangler case. He elected not to try serial killer Angelo Buono for murder, only to see Buono successfully prosecuted by then-Atty. Gen. George Deukmejian.

One of Feinstein’s biggest pluses is “zip,” as one admirer put it. A horse race with Feinstein will not be “the bland leading the bland” or “the Stepford brothers”--two irreverent labels for the Van de Kamp-Wilson match-up. Feinstein is not just one of the boys.

That leads to “the woman thing.” Throughout history, women have been identified with reform movements. Their political image is clean. So, in this era of political scandal, being a woman--and, by definition, an outsider--can be a plus.

Feinstein staked out the anti-Establishment position early; she pledged to make “clean government” a theme of her campaign. Whether she can maintain that posture is debatable.

Feinstein has become the insiders’ candidate. She’s been endorsed by Speaker Willie Brown, Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti and other Democrats angered by Van de Kamp’s attack on the Legislature as a “swamp of special-interest money.” If voters begin to perceive Feinstein as the darling of the “swamp,” she could be hurt.

The woman thing can cut both ways. The Times poll found that women support Feinstein by more than 2-1. That could be a plus in the primary, since women outnumber men 3-2 in the Democratic electorate. But there is still a reluctance on the part of voters to accept a woman in high political office. And, traditionally, female non-incumbents have had greater difficulty than men raising money.

One Democratic analyst argues that “the governor’s election began and ended in the primary of 1988 when the voters passed Proposition 73,” which put a $1,000 cap on individual contributions, per fiscal year. In this state, Democrats can’t compete with Republicans in raising large sums of money at $1,000 a crack.

Van de Kamp may have already “capped out” on contributions from attorneys--a source of early support and the Democratic Party’s major $1,000 donors. When he alienated legislative leaders with his ethics initiative, he saw contributions from their political friends dwindle. Where will Van de Kamp raise the funds needed to run a viable campaign (estimates are $15 million or more)?

Feinstein has the potential of getting around the $1,000 cap by infusing large amounts of personal wealth into the campaign and by calling on mega-fund-raisers Brown and Roberti. And there is no guarantee of substantial help from legislative leaders, who have their own priorities.

Money--or lack of it--always plays a dominant role in determining California’s governor. Sometimes ideology does. Not this time. There are few clear-cut differences among the three candidates on key issues--environment, abortion crime and taxes. This governor’s race could come down to a “litmus test” of a candidate’s consistency and depth of commitment.

The election may be decided on how well each candidate survives the rigors of the race. When the heat is on, will they be able to stay in the kitchen?

Wilson is a veteran of tough fights and has emerged with no major scars. Neither Van de Kamp nor Feinstein has weathered the assaults of a bitterly contested statewide race. Wilson is already stockpiling money in totals unreachable by Democrats; they will have to blow their wad in the primary and start the difficult task of funding-raising all over again for November.

Wilson is ahead on organization, too. Historically, Democrats resist lining up behind one candidate after they’ve mugged the other. Republicans, however, have learned to hold their noses and unite. They will submerge their differences because the California GOP is in a fight for its political life over reapportionment.

The road to November is long and bumpy. But Pete Wilson can take solace from the fact that, while his Democratic opponents struggle up the hill, his biggest chore is to watch out for falling rocks.

GOP VIEW: A Republican political consultant assesses Dianne Feinstein’s striking rise in the polls. M4