HEADLINE: JUDGES: CLINTON WINS DEBATE, BUSH LOSES, PEROT REACHES OUT
Published: Monday, October 12, 1992
Section: National
Page: A1
By MIKE FEINSILBER The Associated Press

Five debate coaches, grading on technical grounds, called Democrat Bill Clinton the winner of Sunday night's presidential debate by the narrowest of margins. They agreed, more firmly, that President Bush lost.

Three of the five said Clinton won, one said Ross Perot won and one saw the outcome as a Clinton-Perot tie.

``Perot followed Harry Truman's admonition and gave them hell while Bush and Clinton simply seemed to give them heck,'' said James Unger, chairman of a five-member team that judged the debate for The Associated Press as if it were a contest between trained debaters.Unger chose Perot as the winner.

When the scores were totaled, the coaches gave Clinton 125 points to 123 for Perot and 117 for Bush. A perfect score would have been 130.On a scale of one to five, with one the lowest, the judges ranked the performances on six criteria - reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, cross examination and presentation.

``This was a splendid debate,'' said James M. Copeland, executive secretary of the National Forensics League in Ripon, Wis., one of the judges.

``I had very, very low expectations for a three-person debate with four questioners but I think all the participants really stuck to the issues that the people wanted to hear about,'' he said. ``There was good interchange between the candidates, not just a lot of prepared puffery.''

Copeland ranked Clinton the winner with a score of 28, giving Perot a 26-plus and Bush a 26-minus.

Clinton was rated the winner, too, by William Southworth, director of forensics at the University of Redlands in Redlands, Calif. He thought Bush did slightly better than Perot. But he wasn't much satisfied with any of the candidates.

``The debate really was mild, very insignificant,'' because it did not produce new information for voters on which to judge the candidates. If anyone came out ahead, he said, it was Perot.

Melissa Wade of Emory University in Atlanta also judged Clinton the winner, just slightly above Perot, with Bush third.
She said Clinton was detailed and thorough in citing evidence to support his arguments and in throwing questions at his rivals. Perot ``had some marvelous lines,'' she said, but they were more like emotional appeals than ideas for governing. As for Bush, he engaged in ``sloganeering,'' she said.

Lanny Naeglin of the North East School District in San Antonio, Texas, rated Perot and Clinton as tied 27-27 with Bush behind them with 25 points. Clinton's strength was the way he responded physically, Naeglin said, making eye contact with the viewer while Bush did not look at the audience much.

``I don't think any candidate either gained or lost except Perot possibly,'' he said. ``He did an exceptional job of reaching out to the public.''

``More than anything, people are going to remember Perot,'' he said.

In Virginia, Sunday's winner depends on who you ask. Patrick McSweeney, state GOP chairman, gave the nod to his candidate. ``I didn't see or hear any knockout blows, but Bush was marginally better than the other two on style points,'' he said. ``Clinton came across as tense in an ill-fitting suit.''

Paul Goldman, head of the state Democratic Party, thought otherwise. ``I think that Governor Clinton had a tremendous performance and scored in every way he could have wanted,'' he said. ``He was solid, substantive and had a sound plan for economic change - a clear comparison to George Bush who offered four more years of failed economic policy.''

And Michael Rau, communications director for the Perot campaign in Virginia, thought his candidate stole the show.

``Mr. Perot did wonderful. This was an absolute first-time situation for him, and he was up to the task. By the time he visits Richmond later this week, he will be on a roll,'' he said.

The next presidential debate is Thursday at the University of Richmond.

Richard Holsworth, a Virginia Commonwealth University political scientist, said all three candidates accomplished what they set out to do.

``I think the debate is a job interview where candidates speak before over 10 million Americans. All the candidates acquitted themselves well,'' he said.

``It re-enforced what people felt rather than changed their minds. It was not dramatic enough to move undecided voters,'' Holsworth said.

Clinton appeared presidential; Perot's folksy witticisms captured the sound bites; and Bush was able to draw distinctions between himself and Clinton on the economy, Holsworth said.

Linda Byrd-Harden, director of the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said she was surprised by Perot and offended by Bush.

``I thought I'd be turned off by Mr. Perot. ... But I found him very entertaining, and I think he was quite correct on many of the issues.

``But I'm not sure if the American people will really take him seriously,''she said.

``President Bush was a total nerd. He was on the defensive and appeared mean and sarcastic,'' Byrd-Harden said.

When asked whether she was a Republican, Democrat, independent or other, Byrd-Harden described herself as one who votes for a person rather than a particular party. She said she was disappointed that the candidates did not discuss the race issue more. She also wanted to hear more about foreign aid especially to Africa. ``We give more aid to Israel than we do to all of Africa,'' she said.

This summer, Gov. Doug. Wilder led a state trade mission to Africa where he attacked U.S. policy for not investing more money in the continent. Wilder dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in January.

Copyright 1992, Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

The archives are stored on a SAVE (tm) newspaper library system from MediaStream, Inc., a Knight-Ridder Inc. company.