|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES | |
 October 3, 2000  |
|
|
Presidential historians Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss and Richard Norton Smith, along with journalist Haynes Johnson, look at the historical implications of the debate in Boston.
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| A revealing debate? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: Michael, you predicted there would be a moment or moments that would be revealing, that would give people Mike Deaver were talking about that hadn't paid any attention some insight into these men. Did you see that?
MARGARET WARNER: So, Doris, since what you wanted was a debate that didn't turn on a gaffe or some horrible mistake but really had issues engaged and philosophies engaged, did that come through tonight?
MARGARET WARNER: You have to wait for the people meter. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Exactly. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| The candidates' essence | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: All right. Richard, let's say you were this Martian that we've heard about tonight, or you're the undecided voter and you just watched this for the first time. What do you think really came through about the essence of each of these men?
MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And also, except for peripherally, we did not hear the name of Bill Clinton, President for two terms, President over Al Gore, the second President in history to be impeached, also the President that presided over the best economy in history. It's amazing to go through 90 minutes and barely hear the man's name.
DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Probably so. I mean, I think at least Mr. Bush was able to make his first impression on a lot of people as one who was a serious person -- and perhaps had worked hard on the debate and had knowledge in his head and didn't somehow flunder as - flunder blunder -- as we worried that he might. And I think on the other hand, Gore showed a very serious side of himself and a conviction about the issues. When he dealt with something like the prescription drugs, it was almost a Ronald Reagan homerun in the sense that he said, you go to your own doctor, you go to your own pharmacy, and the Medicare is going to pay for it. That explained it in everyday terms. That's much better than the little story at the end about the woman with the poodle. I hate those kind of stories. They keep getting dragged in. But that's the way you have to communicate. And he communicated with passion. That's what the credibility issue had to be about. You had to believe that he believed in what he believed. I think we did. So I think in some ways, they both served themselves well. MARGARET WARNER: Okay. More to come later this week. Back to you, Gwen. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
MARGARET
WARNER: And with me are presidential historians Doris Kearns Goodwin
and Michael Beschloss, and journalist and author Haynes Johnson. Joining
them tonight is Richard Norton Smith, a presidential historian and biographer.
All right, Haynes. How does this debate stack up in terms of revealing
debates? Is it one of the more revealing? 
HAYNES
JOHNSON: No, but there's so much expectation. This wasn't the Roman
circus, the gladiators. It wasn't -- Mohammad Ali didn't dance like
a butterfly and sting like a bee. Nobody is lying dead on the floor
of the steaming coliseum. It was a serious debate, real, fundamental
issues. I was interested in something Mike Deaver just said. I think
George Bush did solidly identify with his people. The question is, is
that what the election is about? The other side Gore was kept playing
to is the women, on choice, on the Supreme Court, on abortion -- education,
all these other issues and so forth. I think neither one... they were
both comfortable. If you expected George Bush was going to be a loser,
he wasn't. He knew what he was talking about. But there are two different
constituencies here. Now we'll find out who the majority is. 
MICHAEL
BESCHLOSS: The only one that really came close was that exchange at
the end about character when Jim asked that question about the candidates'
character and George Bush made the point that I want to usher in a period
where people take responsibility for their actions. And Al Gore came
back by saying, as he did in his campaign, his convention speech, I'm
my own man. But the interesting thing is, these guys both came in tonight
wanting to be policy wonks. Forty years after the debates between Kennedy
and Nixon, which were very substantive, we had almost the same thing.
If you were a Martian, you came in tonight, you'd know very much what
the differences were between the two parties. In Gore's case, he wanted
to stay on message, did for 90 minutes, feel that helps him. In Bush's
case, wanted to demonstrate that he was serious and also wanted to make
the point, "I'm for small government, he's for big government,"
and also "Gore hasn't delivered over seven-and-a-half years."
DORIS
KEARNS GOODWIN: I think it did. And I feel relieved to the extent I
didn't want it undone by somebody blundering, which I don't think is
good for the whole country. No gaffe like Ford's was given tonight.
You don't want it to turn simply on image and whether one person is
sweating or not, as it turned out in 1960. I think both men looked strong;
they looked relaxed. They looked confident. The only problem I thought
Gore had was he was great when he was on the screen. When he was off
screen, it was somewhat off-putting to have him halfway there sighing
and shrugging and moving around. I'm not sure he realized that he was
half on the screen so much of that time, and I think they both showed
a certain knowledge. I don't know that there was any homerun, on the
other hand, where somebody just knocked it out of the park -- no one
liners that we're going to remember -- but possibly that's because you
weren't allowed any applause. So how do you identify one liners if there's
no applause?
RICHARD
NORTON SMITH: Well I think we learned tonight that Al Gore knows a lot,
but I think we also learned that George Bush knows enough. I think we
learned a lot about the contrasting philosophies, although neither man
probably would identify himself as being particularly philosophical.
I think tonight will be remembered as much for what did not happen,
and I agree with all my colleagues, for the better. I mean, every four
years, candidates and their handlers live in dread of what I call the
clip. It's that one terrible moment when someone screws up or gets off
a great one-liner and it's repeated over and over again, and it distorts
the rest of the 90 minutes. And we didn't have that tonight. I also
agree with Mike Deaver. I think one of the interesting things that Bush
did very well, they think they're on to something, that people... in
a bipartisan way, people are dissatisfied with the political culture
in Washington. And it's a very skillful way of implicitly running against
the Clinton years without making any "character issue." 
HAYNES
JOHNSON: He kept saying, "I'm from Texas. I'm not the Washington
crowd" or the Washington math, that fuzzy math, so forth. One thing,
though, that was interesting - the only time where it came not on the
bone - but Bush did make a few remarks, the calculator. You invented
the calculator. There were a few little digs that didn't go over, no
- not many clips, but it was just there. Clearly Gore was much more
programmed not to respond at all. 
MARGARET
WARNER: All right. So Doris, each one of these men had to do... Bush
had to lay the rest the thought that he wasn't ready for the presidency.
And Gore had to deal with the credibility issue. Briefly, I mean, do
you think each man did what he had to do?