s he prepares for his final, and quite possibly decisive, presidential debate on Tuesday night, Vice President Al Gore should consider a new strategy: Be himself and ignore the pundits and pollsters.
George W. Bush, on the other hand, would be wise not to adopt this strategy. Rather, it would be to his benefit to let the pundits and the pollsters continue to shape his image for the voters.
Thus far, as most pundits are concerned, Bush can do no wrong at any of the debates, and Gore can do no right, even when he follows the pundits' advice. After the first debate, many pundits refused to acknowledge that Bush could not answer Gore's criticisms that his tax cuts were for the rich and would sacrifice middle class needs.
Rather, they adopted the Bush campaign's strategy: Divert attention away from Bush's poor performance. Focus instead on Gore's heavy sighs of exasperation at some of Bush's answers, or blast the vice president's credibility for not getting all the details right in a few folksy stories intended to highlight the need for his educational and Medicare programs.
After being thus hammered in the media, Gore slipped in the polls. The pundits, like Bush, apparently succeeded in making Gore's sighing and the inaccuracies in his harmless stories more important than Bush's failure to explain his own tax cut plan.
As a result, in the second debate, Gore became a non-sighing, quieter and gentler candidate. And yet he was criticized by many of the same pundits for being too kind and gentle and not being the real Gore. Bush was seen as the winner, based largely on his handling of foreign policy questions.
Ironically, Bush had simply agreed with many of the Clinton-Gore administration's foreign policy strategies. For example, he supported the administration's strategy in Kosovo, while tossing in the GOP criticism of not including the option of ground troops at the beginning. Although there was little substance to his responses, Bush won in the minds of many pundits because he did not embarrass himself. But to say he looked presidential in his answers is more of an exaggeration than Gore's stories.
Perhaps one reason the polls showed Bush the winner of the second debate is that Gore appeared to be listening more to his critics than to his own instincts, and thus was less aggressive toward Bush on foreign policy issues than he would have wanted to be.
Not until toward the end, when he attacked Bush on his health insurance record in Texas, did the real Gore finally emerge. Gore, apparently certain of these details, said Texas was 49th in the nation in terms of health insurance for women and children, and 50th when it comes to providing health insurance for families.
Bush, apparently unable to dispute these details, tried to divert attention by saying he was a good governor trying to do his best to improve the health care in his state. Yet many pundits did not focus on Bush's inability to answer Gore's charges. Rather they applauded his ability to get through foreign policy issues without falling on his face.
In addition, some pundits said that Gore's attack on Bush's record in Texas would not work, just as attacks on Clinton's tenure as governor of Arkansas did not work when he was a candidate. The difference is, Clinton never held Arkansas up as a model, as Bush has with Texas, citing all his achievements and invoking the charming refrain ''Don't mess with Texas.''
Fortunately, when Gore finally focused on Bush's record in Texas, he showed what the real Gore can do against Bush.
Still, the polls said viewers thought Bush outperformed Gore, but no doubt that view was encouraged by the post-debate punditry that gave Bush the victory. Another possible explanation: The flash polls after the debate were slanted toward Bush simply because more supporters of Bush than Gore viewed the debate, according to one network pollster.
But the fact remains that Gore does better when he is himself, not what his critics or other pundits say he should be. He demonstrated that fact during the primaries, during the Democratic convention - where his ''this is who I am'' speech drew rave reviews - and during the first debate.
Since many voters are still undecided, Tuesday night's debate finale looms as the most important of the three. With the Middle East crisis as a backdrop, it is time for Gore to show that he is far more adept in foreign affairs than the Texas governor. The real Gore can simply explain to the voters that this nation must elect its next president based on how capable he is in dealing with a serious international crisis - not just on how likable he may appear.
On the domestic front, Gore has already shown that he is head-and-shoulders above Gore on Social Security, drug prescriptions, Medicare, education, and other issues that matter to working families and senior citizens.
If Gore decides to be himself, and show voters who Bush really is, Gore's chances of winning the last debate and the election will increase ''big time.''
Robert A. Jordan is a Globe columnist.
