A Debate That Rose To The Occasion : Bush, Clinton and Perot square off nicely in St. Louis

Last night in St. Louis, the presidential campaign took a fascinating turn for the better. At Washington University--the kind of institution of quality higher learning for which America is famous the world over--President George Bush, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and billionaire businessman Ross Perot squared off in the first of their three debates. It was the first three-way TV presidential debate in history--and easily the high point of the campaign so far.

Certain things stood out. First and foremost is that the troika debate largely avoided pushing this campaign too much further into the mud of innuendo. Bush and Clinton did exchange verbal blows briefly over the governor’s youthful anti-war activity. Clinton scored a point by invoking the President’s father, former Connecticut Sen. Prescott Bush, who often took on the demagogic Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, as a role model worthy of emulation. But far more of the debate was given over to real issues.

THE PEROT ONE-LINERS: No doubt Ross Perot’s one-liners, homilies and down-home rhetoric appealed to many. Bush and Clinton simply could not match the on-again, off-again presidential candidate for either freshness of expression, compression of expression or even folksy felicity of expression. His rhetoric was clearly better than their rhetoric; but their command of nuances and of the facts was superior to Perot’s set pieces, which were often translucently devoid of fact or nuance.

THE BUSH EXPERIENCE: Though slightly more low key than the occasion seemed to warrant, the President was clearly at ease in the area in which he can make the best claim to superior ability: foreign policy. He ably defended his Administration’s sometimes criticized policies toward China and the deteriorating situation in the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, he nicely evoked some of the Administration’s stellar foreign-policy performances by suggesting that in a second term the Bush Administration would place at the domestic policy helm James A. Baker III, who as secretary of state helped engineer and execute the President’s foreign policies.

THE CLINTON SOLIDNESS: If the governor’s handlers had hoped of their candidate’s performance nothing more deeply thrilling than a very solid performance without serious mistakes, they had to be happy. As expected, Clinton demonstrated a command of many issues, especially health care, Medicaid and Social Security. Certainly the governor appeared a tad tight, not as glib as Perot was or as relaxed as Bush appeared, but when he reacted to one of Perot’s prairie policy pronouncements by saying, “Ross, that’s a great speech, but it’s not that simple,” Clinton seemed to be in his element: the serious policy formulator.

Taken altogether, the three candidates made their points well enough. Again and again, the President painted Clinton as a “tax and spend” Democrat; Clinton painted Bush as a President mired in the status quo; and Perot tried to paint the two of them as two peas in a pod that couldn’t (Bush) and wouldn’t (Clinton) get anything done.

American voters accustomed to all sorts of silliness in this campaign had to be heartened to hear serious issues addressed. At the debate’s end, Perot supporters could only be wondering what the political situation would be today had their man not stepped temporarily aside in July. Bush supporters could perhaps want the President to be a little more compelling in making the case for continuance. And Clinton’s supporters have reason to believe that their candidate’s evident solidness might well serve to solidify his support, which polls suggest at this moment is dominant.

And the American people can take hope that this campaign is finally moving to the high road. On to Round Two Thursday.