9/14/00 8:35 a.m.
Lazio By A Decision
…But this was no K.O.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

he goals of each contestant (didn't it seem like you were watching Jeopardy at times?) were clear: She had to present herself as knowledgable and aggressive without coming off too much like "that which rhymes with witch." He had to present himself as competent and aggressive and of the requisite stature to be considered "senatorial."

Based on those outlines, both Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio were successful in their first debate. The edge goes to Lazio. He certainly disspelled any doubt whether he belonged on the stage. But, most importantly, in the most contentious moment of the evening, he clearly took the debate to her — quite literally.

That moment centered on the most annoyingly significant issue of the campaign -- the role of soft-money. And he scored big. He came with a written pledge to forswear the use of soft-money -- either raising it, spending it, or allowing third-party candidates to use it. Even better he walked over to her podium and put the document down, demanding she sign it.

Hillary marginally parried Lazio's thrust by insisting upon "written letters" from all outside groups agreeing not to raise money or run ads against her — including the Republican National Committee. Now, it is physically impossible to fulfill such a request — something which Mrs. Clinton undoubtedly knows. She was forced to decline to sign the statement.

Now, these debate stunts don't usually work. However, Lazio marked this action as a test of "trust and credibility." By that standard, Mrs. Clinton didn't pass that test. She was smart, however, to take Lazio's hand and shake it, thereby coming off as inviting.

Generally speaking, this was a very good debate. Tim Russert was his usual, good and tough interviewer. He pushed Clinton on the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" statement, forcing her to admit that not all people who criticized her husband fell under that canard. Of course, she used Joe Lieberman as an out there. Russert followed up, though, and Hillary was actually forced to "apologize" — sort of.

Lieberman also was a handy reference when it came to responding to a question as to whether convicted spy Jonathan Pollard should be released. The issue is a live one in New York where many members of the Jewish community believe his sentence should be commuted.

Hillary deftly avoided answering the question by saying that she was troubled by the whole "due process" of Pollard's trial and conviction. She noted that both Joe Lieberman and Charles Schumer have reviewed the "evidence" and differ on Pollard's fate. What a coincidence that both men are Jewish senators (admittedly Schumer also represents New York).

Lazio pointed out that Bill Clinton had suggested back in January 1998 that he would decide upon the case in six weeks. That deadline was more than eighteen months ago. Why the wait? Lazio is likely asking this question to forestall a potential October Surprise — a Clinton release of Pollard.

Ringside Seats
This debate showed why these events are much better seen than heard. Just like Richard Nixon suffered next to John F. Kennedy on television, Hillary's body language betrayed her a couple of times. Both the "VRWC" question and one regarding an illegal teacher strike in Buffalo had her off-stride. She stammered through them, but it was clear that those questions didn't follow her script.

Wednesday evening should convince the First Lady of one thing -- the Newt Gingrich bogey-man just won't sell. Rick Lazio has a return service point that would be the envy of Andre Agassi: "You, of all people, shouldn't try guilt by association."

Besides, Gingrich sounds like a quaint term from another era. Just as Al Gore has managed to bury Bill Clinton as a political liability, the current Republican Party — for good or ill — is defined by George W. Bush, not the former gentleman from the Sixth District of Georgia. In fact, considering how well Gore-Lieberman is doing in New York, it would make far more sense to try to tie Bush around Lazio's neck rather than Gingrich.

Lazio was assertive and confident in sharing his record and contrasting with her lack of one. He sounded spontaneous in his response to proposed casino construction upstate, to increase economic opportunity in the region (casinos are being opened across the border in Canada, drawing away spending dollars and jobs). Lazio said he was against it because it conflicted with the "values" with which he grew up. He said he didn't believe in the "quickie hit." That was certainly not a politically "right" answer, but it was an honest one.

On issues, Lazio scored best on vouchers. Though they are not popular in New York, Lazio's conviction comes through and he should push the issue more.

Hill to Climb
Give Hillary Clinton some credit. She had to come off like she understood the concerns of her latest state. She had to appear both New Yorker tough, yet warm. She generally did that.

She was conversant on the issues, without being pedantic. She demonstrated that she learned a couple of things from her husband: In responding to a question from the audience, she asked the questioner to raise his hand so she could see him. Nice touch. Yes, the "victim" card was pulled out in response to Russert's "VRWC" question. It rubbed me the wrong way, but I'm not sure the casual voter necessarily thought her too fake.

The candidates gave closing comments that were in keeping with what they set out to do at the start of the debate. Mrs. Clinton was more "big picture" and confessed that she obviously has not been the one who has lived in the state the longest, but that she would work the "hardest." Lazio reiterated some of his specific bills and priorities that he had accomplished. She was visionary; he was earnest. Lazio's statement that this race is more about "character and trust" may work better than the similar claim that George W. Bush is trying to make. Al Gore can run on Bill Clinton's record; Hillary cannot.

The debate stripped away the stereotypes from both candidates. Lazio wins this one on points, though they each performed well. It made one actually look forward to the next one.