In the Debate on Debates, Clinton Still Has the Edge

And now the debates. Maybe. For the moment, the President ducks. But only for the moment. George Bush is in a curious position. The debates can cement a Bush loss, but without them he probably cannot win. For once, the Democrat holds the best debate cards. How to play them is the question.

The Bush campaign, in a letter from Chairman Robert S. Teeter, announced that the President would not attend the Sept. 22 debate sponsored by the Bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. Bush also rejected the commission’s debate format of a single moderator.

But the most absurd demand was that the Clinton campaign agree, by last Friday, to sit down with the Bushies directly--or there will be no debates. Oh, scare me, Bob and Jim. You guys are acting like typical bullies. Big talk, with nothing to back it up. You look petty and silly. As if anyone takes such threats seriously. Spare me.

For its part, the Clinton campaign, in a letter from Chairman Mickey Kantor, in effect told Teeter to shove it and, in the process, accused Bush of trying to squirm out of head-to-head debates. Kantor reiterated Clinton’s intention of showing up in East Lansing, Mich., next week--with or without Bush. And, furthermore, if the Bush campaign wanted to negotiate, it could do so through the commission. Atta boy, Mickey. What a perfect opportunity to seize the offensive and back Bush into a dangerously tight corner. I envy you. If only we had had a few of your cards in 1984.

And so the dance begins. There will be no debate in Michigan next week, but Clinton will use its empty setting to embarrass the President and talk about the Democrats’ strong suit--the economy. My guess is that he will not dwell on Bush’s absence but, rather, merely regret that the President missed an opportunity to discuss the major issues of the campaign. Clinton will then go on to discuss those very issues in a serious and thoughtful manner. Score one for the Clinton campaign.

The debate dance will calm down after Michigan--but only for a week or two. Then the press, reflecting the public mood, will begin to demand debates. All in the name of what’s good for the Republic. Debates are defining moments in a presidential campaign, the only time both candidates appear together, man-to-man. If history is any guide, some memorable moments will occur--a line here, a quick response there, tension throughout. Great political theater.

So why is the Bush campaign so afraid of debates? Because they know their history. Debates favor challengers over incumbents. Jimmy Carter over Gerald R. Ford in ‘76, Ronald Reagan over Carter in ‘80, even Walter F. Mondale over Reagan in the first debate of 1984--the brief moment Mondale got back in the race.

But why are challengers helped? Begin with expectations. They are almost always lower for challengers. The mere presence of a challenger on stage, face-to-face with the President of the United States, lends immediate credibility. If he holds his own or actually beats a President in the debate, he can pass that magical threshold that says to the public, “This man is up to being President.”

Last, a challenger is forgiven a mistake or two; a President never. Remember Ford freeing Poland in ‘76, or Carter taking advice from his daughter on nuclear weapons in 1980. No wonder the Bushies are worried.

But here’s the rub. If Bush doesn’t debate Clinton, he may never catch him. All the attacks on Clinton, including the draft, so far aren’t working well enough to close the gap. They need Clinton to trip himself--highly unlikely. Their only hope is to set him up in a debate for Bush or a moderator--or moderators--to force him into a false move. One moment in the campaign’s defining moment that exposes Clinton. A long shot, but a necessary one.

Some Clinton supporters may assume this is good reason not to debate. Sit on a lead. Take no chances. Wrong!

Go back to 1980. The country wanted to move beyond Carter then, just as it wants to move beyond Bush now. But there were lingering questions whether Reagan was up to the job. Was he a dangerous reactionary? Could he really be President? Today, the question is: Can Clinton be trusted with the nation’s highest office? Can he really be President?

Reagan passed the test and the flood gates opened. His small lead before the debate became a landslide after. The same forces are in play in 1992. Clinton needs only to pass the test, to prove he is up to it. So play the cards. Debate Bush twice. Bush can’t refuse. If Clinton does as well as I think he will, the flood gates will open, his lead will solidify and he will be President--maybe in a landslide.