he two-person field for the Democratic presidential nomination provides an excellent opportunity for a series of debates that will enliven the nominating process. Bill Bradley ought to take up Vice President Gore's challenge to go one-on-one in a set of invigorating dialogues.
In a meeting with Globe reporters and editors yesterday, Gore said he was making the debate offer because he is now the underdog. That may be an exaggeration, but Bradley should not adopt the front-runner's traditional pose of minimizing debates. Bradley's campaign chairman, in a letter to the Gore campaign, seemed to be doing just that. He mentioned only a joint appearance in New Hampshire and three other forums. Nowhere was there a commitment to full-scale debates in which the candidates would have plenty of time to question each other directly.
At the Globe yesterday, Gore made much of Bradley's Senate votes to support the contra rebels in Nicaragua and supposedly to endorse Ronald Reagan's economic policy. These votes, artifacts of the 1980s, have little relevance to today's policies. The debates should focus on what the candidates would do in the next century.
Bradley, in the speech announcing his candidacy, said: ''Our campaigns often end up doing the very opposite of what they intend. Instead of engendering hope and optimism, they breed mistrust and cynicism.'' Gore, in a 1994 speech he recalled yesterday, said, '' The only political messages that seem to affect the outcome of elections are those that seek to paint the opposition as a gang of bandits and fools.''
Gore and Bradley are well qualified candidates for president. What better way to dispel public cynicism than debates that emphasize the positive aspects of their candidacies?
So let there be none of the maneuvering for momentary advantage that often occurs when the staffs of two rivals negotiate ground rules for these appearances. A series of debates leading up to the New Hampshire primary in February would showcase the American political process at its best.
