X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:07:23 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: reaction to 1st debate
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

I've now watched the debate twice. I continue to be fascinated by
the exchanges - relative politeness, no in-depth discussion (though
this format gave little room for such either), and few barbs. Bush
appeared to be the most "on attack," with most of his attacking
directed at Clinton specifically or Democrats generally. Clinton
scored with the business about Bush's dad and McCarthy, and Perot
scored big by cliches, homilies and homespun folksiness (though he
offered precious little of substance, and Bush misunderstood what
Ross meant by "lack of will" on the drug front. Ross means we have to
suspend the Bill of Rights to dwemonstrate "will," Bush thought he
was after the DEA).

Cynic that I am, the Gallup tracking poll yesterday said that Clinton
had 50% support, Bush 34%, Perot 10%, with a 3% error factor.
Tomorrow, my guess would be 48-30-14, and by week's end, 46-29-16. I
still believe Perot can only win Texas, if he can win anywhere, but I
continue to think 12-14% of the popular vote could be his, which
numerically would hurt Clinton more than Bush.

It was funny to see Bush try on at least three occasions to cozy up
to Perot in the debate, he sure did not do that with Clinton. I
believe that Clinton and Bush do not like each other, and that Bush
is the most defensive of the three candidates because his record for
doings for the "common man" after 3 and 1/2 years in office has not
been very good. Bush attacked the litigators as the reason for the
rising health costs, I think Perot and Clinton both understand the
fundemental structure is rotten, starting with the insurance
companies. (As I personally believe that not one state insurance
commission does its job, that all 50 insurance commissions are
"owned" by the insurance companies, it may be difficult to cause that
reform too).

But, we the voters DID get to see these three attempt to answer some
of the questions raised in this election. I say Bush "lost," Clinton
held his own, and Perot gained - nobody "won." That is the view this
observer has on this intriguing exchange. I heard many people missed
the first half hour of because of the cliff-hanger 4th game of the
American League playoffs, but I bet 20-30 million of us will have
seen either the debate live, or on C-Span later, with more coverage
again tomorrow, and bits and slices presented until the next one on
the 15th in Richmond. (The VP debate on 13 October promises to be
high farce, but who knows?) We are going to see a lot of the three of
them in the next 4 weeks. But, in closing, Perot ran away for the
critical months of July-September, so if he is pressed by the press,
and has to take the heat Clinton has had to take for a year, will he
reveal the "real" Perot, or will he prevaricate? VMS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics