Bush, Gore scores points but still fall short of mark

  • Geneva Overholser / Washington Post columnist
  • Thursday, October 5, 2000 9:00pm
  • Opinion

WASHINGTON — You have to say this for the first Bush-Gore face-off: They did go at it.

It came across as a genuine debate, two candidates laying out very different visions of government, spewing details, contrasting themselves with one another starkly. Except for the identical-twin outfits, the charge that these two are indistinguishable didn’t stick at all.

It was downright scrappy. There were times when you yearned for moderator Jim Lehrer to take control ("Enough! Al! Stop!"). But then, edgy exchanges are more telling than orderly questions and answers.

There were no major gaffes. Bush had a few difficulties matching subject to verb, ("I’ve been disappointed about how he and his administration has conducted the fund-raising affairs"), but nothing along the lines of converting tariffs and barriers into terriers.

ADVERTISEMENT
0 seconds of 0 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
00:00
00:00
 

In fact, I’d have to say that, if Gore’s task was to prove he’s a nice guy, and Bush’s was to prove he’s something more than that, Bush had the edge. Not because Bush was unerringly authoritative, but because Gore just doesn’t seem to be able to pull off the regular-guy thing.

He certainly tried. The vice president came out kissing and waving. He summoned up tight little smiles and strange little giggles. But that ineffable superciliousness lay upon him like a film of dust.

What exactly is that air, I keep asking myself? Schoolmarmish? Deaconish? That cocked head, eyes slid to the side, eyebrows pinched together and up. That fake, I-regret-it-but-that’s-how-it-is look. Those stagy sighs into the mike. If he wins, can we assume he’ll then relax? Please?!

Bush at least comes across as a decent fellow. He could have been talking to you, to me, to any of us. He wasn’t condescending or pedantic or officious.

But then he wasn’t very impressive, either. The conventional wisdom was that Bush just had to avoid falling flat on his face. He certainly did avoid that. But what a standard! Besides, during the first half, didn’t you find yourself on the edge of your seat hoping against hope that he’d be OK? Talking about international affairs, about financial crises, he seemed so nervous, so tight, so poignantly anxious.

He warmed considerably in the second half, and sounded downright at ease talking about education. But did most of the viewers make it to that point?

Worse, Bush’s attempt to dismiss Gore’s constant you’re-for-the-wealthy charge seemed flimsy. Fuzzy numbers, he’d complain, phony math — never really refuting the details. How you yearned to hear him stick up for the plan: The money goes back, in fair proportion, to those who earned it, he might have told us. He seemed too embarrassed to do it.

Throughout, their rehearsed intentions were obvious. Gore (in addition to his richest-1-percent mantra) was determined to preface his words with, "If you entrust me with the presidency … ," actually rewinding at one point when he had left it out.

As for Bush, he was desperate to produce one of those zingers we’d be remembering for years: He tried "Mediscare," he charged Gore with inventing the calculator as well as the Internet, he said the "buck stops here" sign had been moved from the Oval Office to the Lincoln bedroom. Bombs, all of them.

I’ve been of the opinion that this is a compelling race between two worthy candidates. I guess I still think so. But the two together didn’t make for inspiring viewing. Think back to the masters — say, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Despise either for whatever you will — politics or personal conduct — they were a pleasure to watch. They had grace. They had humor. They were so at home with themselves.

Heck, the supposed failures even looked better: Gerald Ford, who liberated Poland, or Michael Dukakis, who treated the idea of his wife being raped just as he would any other policy detail. Those two seemed masterly and at ease compared with Tuesday night’s performances.

But pulling all this off isn’t easy. These two guys will go out now to the battleground states and try to win over voters in this remarkably tight race, and next week they’ll get back together, and we’ll be watching and hoping. Hoping that Al — who we know is the smartest kid in the classroom — doesn’t try yet again to prove it. And hoping that George will make us believe, at last and for real, that he belongs in this classroom at all.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, June 9

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer testifies during a budget hearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Capitol Hill in Washington on Thursday, May 15, 2025. (Al Drago/The New York Times)
Editorial: Ending Job Corps a short-sighted move by White House

If it’s jobs the Trump administration hopes to bring back to the U.S., it will need workers to fill them.

Comment: Trump’s science policy won’t set a ‘gold standard’

It’s more about centralizing control of science to make it easier to deny what it doesn’t agree with.

Comment: Can NASA’s popularity save it from deep budget cuts?

NASA logos are brand fixtures, a sign of public support. That could wane if cuts limit it’s reach into space.

Comment: Sen. Ernst’s sarcasm won’t help her keep her seat

Her blunt response regarding Medicaid cuts won’t play well in Iowa and won’t win back MAGA faithful.

Comment: Using prejudice against prejudice won’t end antisemitism

The Trump administration’s targeting of immigrants, dissent and universities only assures a longer fight.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, June 8

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE — A Ukrainian drone pilot in the Kharkiv region of northeastern Ukraine on April 24, 2025. Assaults in Russia and Ukraine have shown major military powers that they are unprepared for evolving forms of warfare, and need to adapt. (Tyler Hicks/The New York Times)
Comment: How Ukraine’s drone strike upends the rules of warfare

Inexpensive drones reached deep into Russia to destroy aircraft that were used against Ukraine.

When will Congress stand up to Trump?

Waste, fraud, and abuse? Look no further than the White House. Donald… Continue reading

Keep power on in extreme heat to save lives

Summer is almost here, and with it will come deadly heat waves… Continue reading

Hazen’s commentary was a needed message of hope

A recent Herald Forum commentary by Dan Hazen, was absolutely refreshing (“Holding… Continue reading

Full Life Care employee will miss friendships with staff, clients

I have worked at Full Life Care in Everett for 17 years… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.