Tuesday, October 8, 1996
REACTION:
Most students decry lack of substance when candidates sparBy
John Digrado
Daily Bruin Senior Staff
From the opening round of compliments to the final joint smiling
picture session with their wives and children, Bill Clinton and Bob
Dole exchanged one of the most genteel nationally televised debates
ever held about the future course of the nation.
"You can probably tell we like each other a lot," the president
said toward the close of his 90-minute encounter with his
Republican rival and the former Senate majority leader. "We just
have different views of the future."
Of students who watched the Sunday night debate, supporters on
both sides agreed that while the candidates did not attack the
issues with the same fervor as in years past, both handled
themselves "very well" in the first of three debates scheduled
before the Nov. 5 election.
"I was disappointed in the lack of substantive issues," said
Andrew Cain, a fourth-year political science/history student and
member of Bruin Democrats. "Both candidates each plugged two or
three of their own programs, but President Clinton acquitted
himself better than Dole did," he added.
Republicans agreed, saying that the candidates seemed to avoid
the issues at hand in exchange for a more cordial, albeit less
confrontational, debate and discussion.
"I don’t think that either one of them approached the issues as
much as a lot of people would have wanted them to," said Daniel
Rego, a first-year political science student and member of Bruin
Republicans.
When Dole was invited to take a shot at the president’s
character, he demurred at first, all but passing up a chance to
talk about their "personal differences." Finally, while saying he
didn’t like to get into that kind of thing, Dole did raise the
issue of possible pardons for Whitewater targets, chiding Clinton
for having even talked about the subject.
Several times, Clinton was also held to account for supposedly
exaggerating his record of accomplishments. In truth, it was
somewhat of an exaggeration for the president to assert that his
opponent held a differing vision of a better America. Their real
disparity was over how the country would get there.
This disparity was not lost on students, several of whom noted
that the debate did not implicitly focus on political
mudslinging.
"(The debate) was not so much of a personal attack, but a
competition between them to see who would be the best to lead this
nation," Rego said.
"Dole did very well in the debate, and it showed him to be
Clinton’s equal in his debate skills, if not better," which could
possibly help him in the polls, he added.
Clinton strove throughout to reinforce the moderate and centrist
themes that he has stressed in the last two years of his
presidency. Much of what he said echoed last January’s State of the
Union address and last August’s acceptance speech on the last day
of the Democratic National Convention.
As a clear underdog seeking to create much-needed traction for
the crucial final month of the race, Dole faced by far the greater
challenge. He had to shake off the dark visage that has haunted his
political career while giving voters cogent reasons why they should
reject the incumbent during a time of peace and relative plenty in
the land.
"I think the basic difference is I trust the people, the
president trusts the government," Dole said early on, well before
trying to pin a "liberal" tail on Clinton’s Democratic donkey.
But according to students, Dole did pin the president down with
the moniker in an attempt to portray Clinton as a leader unworthy
of the public’s faith.
"Dole showed the public that they cannot trust Clinton as a
classic liberal. I think, in that, (Dole) succeeded," Rego
said.
While both Clinton and Dole were carefully rehearsed before
coming to the Connecticut capital, as the 90-minute one-on-one
encounter unfolded, the pre-packaged answers did give away to
several sallies that reflected the candidates’ unfiltered
personalities.
Thus, Clinton compared Dole’s liberal accusation to a "golden
oldie record that everybody likes to hear" and added,
Southern-style: "That dog won’t hunt."
More broadly, the Hartford encounter forced both candidates to
back away from the frenzy of state-to-state campaigning to address
much of the nation via the living room or the den in more
reflective ways.
Putting the issue of who won and who lost aside, the debate
itself proved a victory for the political process. It obliged both
Dole and Clinton to hear well-argued alternatives to their polices
on such key issues as taxes and the basic role of government in
areas of crime, health and education.
"Clinton is much better equipped to face the issues that the
students care about, and how he has succeeded in so many ways,"
said Darrin Hurwitz, a fourth-year political science student and
member of Bruin Democrats. "It showed how great of a president
Clinton has been."
Republicans, however, felt that the debate proved that, for all
the general avoidance of the issues, Dole came out on top.
"The debate showed that Dole is Clinton’s equal, if not better
in this debate, and showed that Dole is the leader to get the job
done," Rego said.
Briefly, but dramatically, the candidates were torn from the
cocoons of their own campaigns to face each other on a bare stage
without legions of advisers prepping them to respond in stock ways
to predetermined audiences.
Experience, however, shows that the rise in the civility of the
political discourse  enforced throughout by journalist Jim
Lehrer of PBS Â will have a great bearing on the election come
Nov. 5. After the three presidential debates of 1992, nearly nine
out of 10 voters said the debates had done nothing to change their
minds. Over the years, surveys show debates, more than anything
else, tend to reinforce a voter’s set disposition.
With reports from Daily Bruin wire services.
Dole did raise the issue of possible pardons for Whitewater
targets …"I think the basic difference is I trust the people, the
president trusts the government."
Bob Dole