Debates, Round One

The first 2000 presidential debate reaffirmed the wisdom of the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates in requiring that the candidates address each other in a formal setting. Although evasive answers and vague generalities were legion, the debate effectively exposed the two major candidates' often-inscrutable differences and ability to think on their feet. We hope that future debates will at least maintain last night's albeit inconsistent sophistication and breadth.

In his speeches, Bush effectively articulated a commitment to bipartisanship. He repeated his GOP convention assertion that Clinton and Gore had failed to fulfill their campaign promises after seven years in office and pledged to create an administration that would trust people to make the choices to improve their own lives. Perhaps to counter an impression that he would not be up to the job, Bush explained that his decision-making process would include soliciting advice from advisors and others on his "team," emphasizing his role as chief executive officer of the second-largest state in the nation. Of the two candidates, Bush also had the more memorable one-liners.

While the Republican candidate stressed his general approach to executive leadership, Gore once again hammered the issues on which he feels most comfortable: a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, the environment, education and Social Security. His anecdotes may have been less powerful than at the Los Angeles convention, but they were still effective, especially that of a Florida high school student whose classroom is too crowded to provide her a desk. Gore's control of specifics were again impressive, and his responses to questions regarding the Serbian election, oil reserves and energy policy, RU-486 and the Supreme Court were well-reasoned and articulate. He spoke naturally, especially on topics where his greater control of quantitative information gave him the advantage.

However, Gore was also more prone to avoiding questions--such his role in campaign finance scandals--and bending the pre-determined time limits. His non-response to the first question on Bush's experience was unfortunate, as he could have made a convincing point rather than devolving into generalities on tax cuts and Medicare reform. Yet Bush's faults were up to par with those of the vice president; Bush seemed uncomfortable and out of place in front of the camera, especially when the time limit lights came on. Bush's many vague answers may have confused the audience and may have easily contributed to the impression that he is a lightweight on the issues. He repeatedly accused Gore of using "fuzzy math" rather than addressing serious quantitative criticisms of his positions, trying to answer significant policy disagreements with a smirk.

The one shining star of the debate was moderator Jim Lehrer, whose creative and insightful questions forced the candidates to address national and international issues that they would rather have avoided. He also developed issues and demanded that the candidates explain their differences, especially on the topics of foreign policy and public education. Unfortunately, at the Bush campaign's urging, the next two presidential debates will assume different formats that are less structured and will offer fewer opportunities for Lehrer to steer the candidates back on course. We hope that the candidates will follow the better angels of their nature and discuss the issues without Lehrer's guidance as respectfully and earnestly as they did last night.