|
Following the first of the three debates scheduled between the two main presidential candidates, little has changed in the minds of the electorate. Despite some clashing between the views of Bush and Gore, the Tuesday, October 3rd, match did little to convince the undecided block of voters - most of them still remain unsure of how to cast their vote on Super Tuesday.
What was the debate actually about?
Its purposes were two-fold: to clarify and compare the two candidates' positions regarding the major issues of this campaign; and to demonstrate the character, leadership qualities, and the abilities of both candidates to articulate and defend their political agendas. The debate offered them an opportunity to strengthen their weak points - consistently highlighted by the media throughout their campaigns.
As both candidates attempted to frame their policies within the broader picture, it was apparent that their different views regarding the role of government is paramount in this election.
Bush started out by emphasizing that he is no Washington insider, and that he has demonstrated, as Texas governor, an ability to work with politicians of both parties, which he will continue to do if elected president. While defending his budget plans, Bush appealed to the large number of Americans who favor a smaller role by the government. He portrayed Gore as a pro-government politician who will continue favoring extensive allocation of resources to the government.
Gore, on the other hand, delivered a detailed and sophisticated counter debate; however, he appeared to be preaching to the American audience and telling them what to do rather than including himself as one of the workers amongst them. This has been an issue throughout his campaign.
However, one of the points by which Gore scored high was his ability to connect with women voters - not only Democrats, but women at large. His stance on pro-choice and the recently approved abortion pill gained him the endorsement of most pro-choice advocates.
The governor seemed shaky when asked about his position towards the FDA's decision regarding the abortion pill, insisting that he would ask the agency to review its decision (based on his concern that the pill poses a threat to women's health) rather than attempt to reverse it. Neither of them spoke of racial or ethnic relations in America, sticking to answering the questions initiated by moderator Jim Leherer.
Concerning foreign affairs, with the advantage of his seven years in office as vice president, Gore seemed more knowledgeable - particularly when it came to the situation in the Balkans - and more certain about the role he felt America should play throughout the world. He reminded viewers of his support of the Persian Gulf War, and noted that he had proposed a greater increase in defense spending over the next decade than had Bush.
Taking a look at both candidates' character, Bush was dealing with the expectation by many after being called dyslexic by some analysts, that he might be unable to finish his sentences. In that light, he did fairly well, managing to articulately defend his positions and using actual figures to support them - though not with the same level of mastery as did his opponent. He defied, to a great extent, the general idea that he is sociable but generally less intelligent than Gore. However, given the country's current record of economic prosperity, he failed to convince viewers (particularly that undecided block of voters) of a definite and urgent need for a change in administration.
Gore, still contending with the problem of a lack of charisma and popularity among voters, tried not to sound robotic; however, his stoic facial expressions and tendency to sigh may have further distanced him from some. Consistent with the audience's expectations, he was definitely skillful in reference to details, in personalizing the issues by pointing to real life cases, and in communicating about major national and international issues.
Overall, the debate was very serious, and did not offer either candidate much of an opportunity to show their sociable or humane side. However, for those who were hoping for an end to their torturous contemplating about whom to vote for, it helped little. They will have even higher expectations for the next two debates, which to be held within the coming weeks in a different format - one as a round table discussion and the other as a town-hall meeting.
|
