arely has a political debate showcased two candidates so similar in substance but divergent in style as Vice President Al Gore and former senator Bill Bradley Wednesday night at Dartmouth College.
If Gore was determined, as he seemed to be, to shake his reputation for woodenness, he succeeded. Lively, animated, connecting with the questioners, even telling an old joke, Gore was a bundle of energy for more than two hours. Of getting government to take mental health more seriously, he essentially pleaded for votes, saying, ''This one I will fix for you.''
Gore deftly inserted in nearly every answer a jab at Bradley - for advocating a health care plan that is ''way excessive,'' for supporting a pilot school voucher program, for opposing a US military role in East Timor. As the debate progressed, Gore aides in the press room distributed five ''reality checks'' that questioned Bradley's consistency. This is standard stuff in high-level politics, and Gore did it well.
The surprise was that Bradley refused to engage. He acted as if he were not involved in a two-person contest for the Democratic nomination but in a conversation directly with the voting public, trying to persuade citizens that he is offering himself and his vision at the right time.
Bradley defended his health plan cost estimate but ignored open invitations to be critical of Gore or his record. Instead he said of health care: ''It is a big problem; it needs a big solution.'' And he concluded: ''America's about dreaming and about being able to fulfill those dreams.''
This is a significant departure from the prizefight model of campaigns, and we hope it keeps up. Bradley will have to add more specifics to his agenda. And Gore will not be denied a role. But Bradley showed, at least in Dartmouth's town meeting format, that he can speak above the fray.
In last night's similar town meeting for Republicans, Governor George W. Bush of Texas, instead of absenting himself, would have done well to try a similar tack.
