While both gave their own versions of the truth about health, education, national security and the rest, the rules of challenge and response produced a dialogue that could at times almost be termed Socratic. In Britain, land of debate, this has never been allowed. But there were no leader debates for the next 40 years because successive leaders didn't want them. Sometimes they got close. Invariably, though, the strongest placed candidate has ducked away, or else both the big ones have sheltered behind pretended concern about what to do with the Liberal Democrat.
Politicians worry about voters' mistrust of their trade, and alienation from the process.
Well, here's a device that can remake the connections and perhaps rebuild some trust. It would, admittedly, be riding with the punch of television. Instead of bleating about the rise of TV and the decline of parliament, Mr Blair, Mr Hague and Mr Kennedy would be surrendering to the power of the medium that enables them to speak direct - and some parliamentary traditionalists do not like that. To most people, however, the chance to hear from leaders in a more challenging forum than a party political broadcast matters more than, say, the identity of the new Speaker now scrambling to succeed Betty Boothroyd. Some aspects of the Gore-Bush debates could not be replicated here.