<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<BODY.CONTENT>
<UID>
0010140146
</UID>
<PUBLICATION>
DETROIT FREE PRESS
</PUBLICATION>
<DATE>
001015
</DATE>
<TDATE>
Sunday, October 15, 2000
</TDATE>
<EDITION>
METRO FINAL
</EDITION>
<SECTION>
COM; CHOICES
</SECTION>
<PAGE>
1E
</PAGE>
<ILLUSTRATION>

</ILLUSTRATION>
<CAPTION>

</CAPTION>
<BYLINE>
MITCH ALBOM
</BYLINE>
<AFFILIATION>

</AFFILIATION>
<MEMO>

</MEMO>
<COPYRIGHT>
Copyright (c) 2000, Detroit Free Press
</COPYRIGHT>
<HEADLINE>
THERE'S NO DEBATE: WE JUDGE LIKE KIDS
</HEADLINE>
<SUBHEAD>

</SUBHEAD>
<CORRECTION>

</CORRECTION>
<BODY>
You don't normally get to pick your boss. And that's the problem with this
presidential election.

We are watching these debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush -- two down,
one to go -- and in a way, we are conducting a job interview. The candidates
are wearing their nicest suits, selling their strengths, downplaying their
weaknesses.

It's the same thing that happens when you go to hire a salesperson, a
secretary or a housekeeper.

Only in this case, once you make your choice, the person no longer works for
you, he's in charge.

No wonder the way Gore sighs seems to make so much difference to us. No wonder
the way Bush smiles goes such a long way with voters.

I mean, who wants a boss he doesn't like?



A friendly face?

Which leads us to our dilemma. We are watching these debates like children
auditioning baby-sitters. Who wants the old hag with a stern look and a sharp
tongue? Wouldn't we prefer the friendly-faced teenager who looks as if she
wouldn't mind a pillow fight?

I can't tell you how many people after that first debate sent me e-mails
complaining about Gore's sighing and seeming impatience. And the fact that he
behaved like a "know-it-all."

Far fewer people said that when it comes to president, picking the guy who
knows more might be important.

And how many people, after that first debate, branded Gore a "liar" because he
said he'd traveled to Texas with a certain federal official (a guy most
Americans have never heard of) when in fact he'd traveled with one of the
man's deputies (another guy most Americans have never heard of).

For that faux pas, and one other exaggeration (concerning how long a
schoolgirl stood in a crowded classroom) Gore was pasted, lambasted and
parodied on "Saturday Night Live" as a serial prevaricator.

Yet after the second debate, far fewer people jumped on Bush when he said that
all three white supremacists charged with killing a black man in Texas "were
going to be put to death."

In fact, only two are.

I don't know. Forgetting how many people you're executing seems a more
bothersome memory loss than who you took a trip with.

Why wasn't there more objection? Because Bush comes across as the nice
baby-sitter. We say to ourselves, "Ah, he didn't mean anything by it." Whereas
with Gore, seen as stiff and deliberate, every word is measured on a scale of
manipulation.

Did you notice in the second debate when Gore pointed out Bush's record on
health care in his home state of Texas? He said it ranked at the bottom of the
U.S. barrel, 49th or 50th. If we're judging candidates on their records,
that's a valid pretty criticism.

Yet when the moderator asked Bush -- twice -- "Are those numbers correct?"
Bush never answered.

Was there outrage? No, because of the way we look at Bush. He doesn't like to
get too bogged down with numbers. Why should we?



The right man?

Now I know in reading this, many people will assume I am pro-Gore and
anti-Bush. That is not true. To be honest, I haven't made up my mind. Besides,
I am not a political columnist, and whom I support matters little.

But I am concerned about the process. I am concerned about a country that sees
sighs, eye rolls and kisses on "Oprah" as the barometers of who will make a
good president.

The accusations that Gore "reinvents himself"? What politician doesn't? Bush
is charming and gets people to work together? They said the same things about
Bill Clinton.

What worries me is that we, as Americans, have so little interest in the
actual issues, that we judge our most important election based on who we think
we'd like to have lunch with.

The teenage baby-sitter wasn't always the most responsible one. The
stern-looking hag often knew best how to handle an emergency. There is a time
to worry which guy has a nicer laugh and a time to worry which guy knows what
he's talking about.

If you decide that's Bush, fine. If you decide that's Gore, fine. I am not
telling people how to vote.

I am suggesting that if we want a serious president, we ought to be serious in
our standards.



Contact MITCH ALBOM at 313-223-4581 or  albom@freepress.com. Catch "Albom in
the Afternoon" 3-6 weekdays on WJR-AM (760).
</BODY>
<DISCLAIMER>
THIS ELECTRONIC VERSION MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM THE PRINTED ARTICLE.
</DISCLAIMER>
<KEYWORDS>
COLUMN;PRESIDENT;CAMPAIGN;DEBATE
</KEYWORDS>
</BODY.CONTENT>
