After All Is Said, At Least There’s a ‘Choice’

Republicans are trying to win one for the quipper.

That much was evident during Sunday’s low-achieving debate between President Clinton and challenger Bob Dole, followed by the customary coverage that recalled Paddy Chayefsky’s dismissal of TV in “Network” as “the common rubble of banality.” More about that shortly.

Meanwhile, there is a different, arguably better way to inform the public about presidential hopefuls, as PBS reaffirms tonight.

Unlike the endless theater of televised debates that hum a monotonous prepackaged Muzac of partisan rhetoric, Helen Whitney’s “Frontline” documentary, “The Choice ‘96,” creates a rich, nubby texture by having journalists, biographers and intimate observers view Clinton and Dole through a variety of prisms, including the regional cultures that have shaped them.

“The Choice ‘96” doesn’t always avoid the potholes of facile extrapolation. Says caricaturist Steve Brodner about Dole: “In the hollows of his face, I find a certain hollowness in him.” And about Clinton: “That face is very easy to link up with a policy that is really a very indistinct policy, so that it can be amended and changed as the political winds change.”

And what about their earlobes? Could be something there.

Such prima facie “evidence” notwithstanding, “The Choice ‘96” is enormously interesting and provocative as a program that, beyond merely connecting the dots, gives depth and breadth to Dole and Clinton. Its many insights into the candidates make these two hours a must-see this election season.

Psychoanalysis from afar is always perilous. You can’t help being impressed, though, how uncannily linked each of the candidates is to his past and early environment.

Dole the laconic son of Russell, Kan., versus Clinton the Hot Springs, Ark., “bubba with brains,” as someone labels him here. The Methodist Dole, a quiet man from a quiet church, hoping to wrest the presidency from a Southern Baptist reared on hallelujahs.

We’re told tonight by Kansans that hiding “within yourself” comes easy to them in a severe land known for black twisters that destroy lives and dreams, perhaps explaining why the taciturn Dole seems to keep so much hidden in the padlocked storm cellars of his mind. And we hear from Arkansans about the climate of verbosity that bred Clinton, whose exuberant passing the plate for votes someone likens to Magic Johnson running a fast break.

Dissimilar men, dissimilar skills. Clinton the master campaigner is contrasted with Dole the master legislator who rose to the congressional apex by knowing everyone’s needs and how to get things done, skills he sharpened in his youth as a soda jerk at Dawson’s Drug Store, where he knew everyone by name and what they wanted.

What a difference context makes. In business as usual, Dole included in his opening statement Sunday a brief but strategic reference to his calamity during World War II as a young lieutenant “in the mountains of Italy.” Such stories of Dole the warrior play on the stump like a cynical political ploy whose sole purpose is to contrast his brand of patriotism with non-soldier Bill Clinton’s.

*

In contrast, images of Dole’s war combat are evoked tonight with a power and sincerity that may move you to tears, as they do Dole’s sister while recalling the horrific wounds that altered her brother’s once-strapping body and rendered his right arm useless.

That traumatic war experience, Michael Kelly, Washington editor of the New Yorker, maintains tonight, underlies the “as if it mattered” tone of Dole’s wisecracks, the theory being that, to him, he’s already been through everything that truly mattered. Indeed, Dole had publicly joked prior to Sunday’s debate that he expected bored viewers to quickly switch it off.

And Kelly sees in Clinton’s attempt to “get out of the way of risk in the Vietnam War” an ambitious young man “coming to accept in his mind the great compromise from which all the other compromises would flow: ‘I have to do this because I have to keep my political options open . . . because I have great and good things to do in my life.’ ”

A similar theme runs through a section of the program about the candidates’ mentors. We have the spirit of Richard Nixon hovering over Dole’s shoulder, and Clinton learning about “flexibility”--a euphemism for ends justifying means--from watching his hero, Arkansas Democrat William J. Fulbright. Regarded by many as the liberal conscience of the U.S. Senate, Fulbright was nonetheless an ardent segregationist in the 1950s and ‘60s who sided with racists in opposing civil rights reportedly to survive politically in the South so that he could be a progressive influence in education and other issues that were his passion.

*

It’s on the issue of compromise where the two candidates intersect, with “The Choice ‘96” ultimately depicting Clinton and Dole, despite their many differences, as pragmatic soul brothers in the political process, each willing to exchange his principles for new ones that meet his long-term political needs.

In effect, that’s what they charged about each other Sunday night, when their cramming sessions with handlers and comedy writers reached fruition in Hartford, Conn.

It was Dole who scored the evening’s first one-liner only a few minutes into the debate, saying, “He’s better off . . .” when asked by moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS about Clinton’s claim that Americans are better off than four years ago.

Clinton never caught up, the final quip count showing Dole on top 11-5. Clinton’s total would have been even lower had originality been a criterion, for one of his quips quoted Dole’s running mate, Jack Kemp.

On the other hand, Dole’s margin drops to four if you discount his two stale quips that justifiably drew no response from the audience.

*

Meanwhile, there was a notable absence of facial tics, but Clinton and Dole fought to a draw in responses calculated to influence viewers, the president far out in front in smug smirks, the challenger solidly ahead in dark scowls.

Viewers were able to monitor this themselves thanks to the generosity of CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC/MSNBC, which repeatedly telecast the debate with split screens, half showing a candidate talking, half his opponent reacting, at once providing a sort of instant counterspin and diverting attention from the speaker. Well, as long as it made for good TV.

The rest of the spin came later.

On CNN, the whiny, sermonizing half of that grotesque Hydra--the two-headed Ross Perot/Larry King colossus--spat out words aimed at turning Clinton and Dole to stone: “They never went to the core problem, none of them ever came down to the harsh realities.”

The harsh realities were on ABC, where an objective observer was lauding the performance of Dole: “His humor, his compassion, his vision of the future. . . .” Naturally, the cynics would later claim that Kemp was biased.

On NBC, after weighing both debaters thoughtfully and anguishing over his decision, another sincere observer was declaring for Clinton. “I thought he outlined a vision of the 21st century,” said Vice President Al Gore.

Would these good Americans fib?

*

The realities got even harsher as Kemp and Gore addressed the cameras of all the networks, becoming foreplay for TV’s own internal staff spinners. Clinton “didn’t sound spontaneous, he didn’t show much of a sense of humor, he didn’t respond to Bob Dole’s attacks,” concluded Rita Braver of CBS. Dole “did himself some good, he did use humor,” ruled Sam Donaldson of ABC.

Dole “needed to do two things tonight,” Phil Jones of CBS explained to an intrigued Dan Rather. “He needed to look competent on the issues and he needed to not look like a hatchet man. I think he succeeded on both things.”

NBC, meanwhile, had the high-tech gizmo and the folks to use it on: a focus group of 36 ordinary citizens who were able to “dial” their preferences during the debate. The result, when shown later, became a fluid three-color graph that was not only confusing but also, as a bonus, incomprehensible.

Meanwhile, Rather was saying that “Dole wins, in a sense that he was introduced to so many more people than he was before.”

All of this was wisdom on deadline, of course, no easy assignment. For a fairer view, let’s check in with TV Monday morning, having given the sages time for deeper contemplation. Take NBC’s “Today” program, for example.

“Clinton gets an A-minus, Dole a B,” said Lisa Myers. “A B-minus to Dole, Clinton a B,” said Gwen Ifill. “Both B-pluses,” said that softy Tim Russert.

That was only a prelude to something much heavier on “Today” from “communications expert” Bert Decker, who, proving that anyone can find work on TV, assessed Dole’s performance for a rapt Bryant Gumbel: “I counted 30 blinks in 10-12 seconds.”

To lesser minds, no big deal. But to Decker, that signified “a lack of confidence and certainty.” His advice to Dole: “Stop blinking and focus.”

At last, the debate had found a headline.

* “The Choice ‘96” airs on “Frontline” at 9 tonight on KCET-TV Channel 28.