EW YORK - It was Hillary Clinton who came out swinging yesterday in the second round of New York's Senate debates.
Clinton denounced her opponent, Republican Representative Rick Lazio, for breaking an agreement reached less than two weeks ago to ban the use of ''soft money,'' or unregulated campaign contributions.
''If New Yorkers can't trust him to keep his word for 10 days,'' she asked, ''how can they trust him for six years to keep his word on Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, and education?''
Lazio bounced back, saying, ''Please, Mrs. Clinton, no lectures from Motel 1600 on campaign finance reform,'' a reference to reports that the Clintons have rewarded campaign-donors with a sleep-over at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Apart from this exchange, yesterday's fast-paced hour-long debate, which was broadcast nationally on CNN, was far more civil than last month's first round in Buffalo. The questions were more pointed, the answers more precise, and both candidates spelled out their differences far more clearly and eloquently on a wide range of issues, from health care and abortion rights to the upstate economy and the merits of a tax-funded athletic stadium on Manhattan's West Side.
In perhaps the most newsworthy moment, Clinton criticized her husband's policy on a key issue for New York's many Jewish voters - saying the United States should have vetoed, not merely abstained on, a UN Security Council resolution that criticized Israel for the bloody clash with the Palestinians. She also held PLO leader Yasser Arafat solely responsible for the violence.
On this matter, Lazio agreed.
As she has done before, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly criticized Lazio for voting with the former House speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders.
When Lazio said New York needs one senator who is in the majority party, Clinton replied it would be better to elect enough Democrats to change the party in control.
There was little in the way of personal attack. When the moderator said many viewers had asked via e-mail why Clinton stayed with her husband after all his philanderings, she replied, steadily, ''The choice that I've made for my life is right for me ... based on my religious faith, on my strong sense of family and what I believe to be right and important.''
Lazio politely said, when his turn came for comment, ''This was Mrs. Clinton's choice and I respect whatever choice she made. This race is about the issues, about who can be more effective for New York.''
It was a far cry from the first debate, when Clinton stammered through a question about the Monica Lewinsky affair and then Lazio piled on additional criticism.
That moment resulted in widespread displeasure with Lazio and a huge boost of sympathy for Clinton.
Lazio, perhaps sensitive to that earlier misstep, passed up more than one opportunity yesterday to go on the attack. Asked to elaborate on his recent comments that this election will show ''whether character counts,'' he replied, ''Let me not explain how they apply to Mrs. Clinton, but how they apply to me.''
He then laid out his qualifications for the job, based on his voting record, experience, and ability to form bipartisan coalitions to pass laws - all of which he described in more specific detail than he did in the first debate.
Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic consultant who does not work for the Clinton campaign, said afterward, ''Lazio did what he should have done three months ago .... The question is whether it's too little, too late.''
With a month to go until election day, polls show Clinton leading by 7 percentage points.
