30 Seconds Over California: a TV Spot Lets Feinstein Soar--but It’s Not the Key : Politics: A GOP consultant says it has less to do with the former San Francisco mayor than with her Democratic opponent, John Van de Kamp.

Dianne Feinstein’s striking rise in the polls has an ironic twist: It has little to do with her. It has far more to do with the failed candidacy of Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp and the dynamics of gubernatorial politics in California.

The current conventional wisdom credits the generosity of Feinstein’s husband, financier Richard Blum, in financing a 30-second TV commercial that catapulted her into a substantial poll lead over her Democratic opponent, Van de Kamp. Analysts are carefully dissecting the TV spot for contrived reasons to explain her sudden popularity.

The TV spot obviously moved the poll numbers. However, analysts can save time by not microanalyzing the TV spot, and instead pay attention to the bigger picture in California gubernatorial politics. That same commercial used against a hypothetical reelection campaign of Gov. George Deukmejian would barely have caused a stir.

The Feinstein TV success has less to do with the intricacies of the TV commercial and more to do with why Van de Kamp has not cinched his party’s nomination. After all, his name has been plastered in grocery stores and bakeries throughout Southern California because of the family business. He was district attorney in vote-rich Los Angeles and has served seven years as state attorney general--the best jumping-off point for would-be governors.

Van de Kamp’s vulnerabilities are what permitted, even encouraged, the Feinstein surge. The most important one is lack of leadership. The California electorate has a natural “reactive” quality, related to a “the grass is greener on the other side of the fence” mentality. After Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. as governor, the public was delighted to have a calm, steady hand in the governor’s office.

Now after eight years of a solid management style, the public is ready for more aggressive leadership in Sacramento. Leadership is a quality, not a proposal. It is hard to define, but you know it when you see it. Few think Van de Kamp has it. He comes across like Gov. Michael S. Dukakis--perhaps efficient, but with little warmth or fire. You are convinced he doesn’t have a clue about the “vision thing.”

The Van de Kamp strategy of driving his campaign with three initiatives is seriously flawed. It was a great tactic for 1989 to generate media attention, enhance his name recognition and put his campaign team through a fire drill.

But now his initiatives have become an albatross. They distract the campaign’s attention away from the gubernatorial race and waste valuable campaign resources. Van de Kamp’s campaign has generated significant opposition because of resentment from opponents of the initiatives. He has alienated most Democratic legislators and the powerful agricultural community, which is key to winning votes in the Central Valley.

A candidate is supposed to use issues as a backdrop--like standing in front of a forest. Van de Kamp’s initiatives have him standing in the forest--lost in the trees and unseen by the public.

Now let’s give Feinstein her due: She has done a good job. She has a chance now that few thought possible only a few weeks ago. Her TV spot was good. She did in 30 seconds what Van de Kamp didn’t do in 30 months. You had feeling about Dianne Feinstein. She was thrust into leadership through tragedy. Her theme, “tough and caring,” blends the best possible Democratic message, while nicely setting up Van de Kamp for weaknesses in his record.

There is no evidence at this point that Feinstein can sustain her lead and maintain herself as the new favorite in the race. There is plenty of time before the primary. You do get a sense, however, that the Feinstein campaign understands something about communicating with the voters.

Van de Kamp reactively turned his announcement tour into an attack on this poor woman who emerged out of tragedy--what a cad! Van de Kamp doesn’t understand that the public is desperately seeking a leader, in a world full of dynamic and dramatic change. He hasn’t displayed leadership so far, which is exactly why one 30-second TV commercial has turned California’s political world upside down.

If Feinstein is successful through the primary, she faces a totally different type of campaign. It could well be characterized as a tale of two cities. As the former San Diego mayor, Sen. Pete Wilson will have a convenient starting point to compare records with the former mayor of San Francisco.

Unlike Van de Kamp, Wilson understands the qualities of leadership. Probably not by accident, Feinstein’s “tough and caring” is exactly the Wilson formula. While boldly speaking out on education and the environment to bolster his “caring,” he has been unabashedly “tough” on crime and against raising taxes. Both Wilson and Feinstein have tapped a vein of public support.

In the end, the deciding vote in the governor’s race is not cast by Republicans, Democrats or independents. It is not cast by people in Northern, Central or Southern California. It is not cast by liberals, moderates or conservatives. It is cast by people who reach down into their guts and get a feeling for the man or woman running for office. It has to feel good. So far, no one has felt anything for John Van de Kamp. The only candidate you can feel for is Dianne Feinstein.