10/10/00 3:25 p.m.
Queen of New York?
Hillary & Rick, Round II.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

he campaign adage, "Don't bet against Clinton" usually refers to Bill. Well, based on the second debate for the U.S. Senate this past Sunday, it may be time to transfer that statement to Mrs. Clinton.

Is it over yet? Is the potentially second-most-interesting — yet, in fact, pretty dull — race just about a fait accompli? Well, maybe not, yet the second Hillary Clinton-Rick Lazio debate this past Sunday is unlikely to change the fundamentals of the race — which are favoring the first lady right now.

But, as observers of debates know, it's not always the candidate who wins the points in the debate who actually "wins." Al Gore is finding that out right now, to his extreme discomfort. On points, Mrs. Clinton did more than hold her own; she won. Would there be lots for a conservative to attack her over? Of course, but she is running in New York, which is more liberal than the rest of the nation. Republicans can win statewide — Alfonse D'Amato and George Pataki are evidence of that. However, one has to run a vibrant, dynamic campaign and Lazio has not yet done that.

In Sunday's debate, the candidates went back and forth over issues, but Lazio didn't stand out and Clinton didn't make any egregious stumbles. One issue on which Lazio could have distinguished himself — partial-birth abortion — was neatly parried. Lazio had previously said that Sandra Day O'Connor would have been the type of Supreme Court Justice that he would vote to confirm. Aside from Lazio's odd view that O'Connor "has a respect for precedents," his choice gave Hillary an out — which she smartly took, saying that she could support a ban on "late-term" abortions if it permitted a "constitutional exception that Sandra Day O'Connor pointed to in her most recent decision about life and health." Smart rhetorical move — and an argument that plays in New York.

Many people thought that Lazio battled Hillary at least to a draw in their first go-round last month. However, the after-debate analysis got dragged down on whether he unfairly "invaded her space" with a demand that she sign a "no soft money" contract. That was clearly the stand-out moment. Unfortunately, Lazio has been pretty much on the defensive since then. He did manage to get Hillary to cave on a soft-money agreement. Sadly, that came back to bite him in the days before the second debate.

This should be a cautionary tale for other "end soft money" advocates. Lazio is running an ad that shows his sponsoring of a bill giving disabled individuals a greater access to work. It's a nice "soft-and-fuzzy" and, needless to say, "compassionate" spot demonstrating that Rick Lazio can get things done. Unfortunately, for several days, it ran with the description: "Paid for by Lazio 2000/Republican National Committee."

Mrs. Clinton's forces cried foul, saying that the ad violated the terms of the candidates' soft-money cease-fire. In fact, it did not do any such thing. The money for the ad coming from the RNC is actually legitimate coordinated federal money that the law allows parties to give. Lazio asserted that it didn't fall under their agreement. Of course, the distinction between "soft" outside money and "hard" outside funds is pretty much lost on the mind of the average voter. So Lazio backtracked: He first said that he would yank the ad, then decided he would just return the money to the RNC.

Either way, this was not the sort of imbroglio Lazio needed going into the debate. As it was, this columnist caught the ad the Saturday night before the debate — with the "Republican National Committee" citing still on it. Hillary, of course, pounced on it, saying (believe it or not!): "[I]f New Yorkers can't trust him to keep his word for ten days, how can they trust him for six years on issues like Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, and education?" Lazio responded with a sharp, "[N]o lectures from Motel 1600, Mrs. Clinton..." Good response, but the entire mess had certainly robbed Lazio of the high ground in the mind of the average voter.

That was probably the sharpest exchange in the whole hour. Lazio didn't even hit Hillary Clinton much on the fact that she is not a native New Yorker. In fact, her response to the final question, "define a New Yorker," was poetic and almost heartfelt. Even the most jaundiced, suspicious viewer had to grudgingly admit that she at least sounded the part.

If there was one question where Mrs. Clinton seemed to fall flat it was in response to a query about why she stayed with Bill Clinton. While it would not have been out of bounds for her to respond, "none of your damned business," her actual answer struck this columnist as nearly Dukakis-like in its clinical nature. She talked about the "choices" that she has made that are right for her and that she would work in the Senate to ensure that women would be in the right position to be able to make those choices. Interestingly, she referred only obliquely to Chelsea — who was in the audience — and did not reference "Bill" or "my husband."

Maybe I haven't completely exorcised all aspects of cynicism from my soul, but wouldn't it have been interesting for her to say, "Well, it was a painful time and at times it still is. But, please remember, that my husband and I have unique positions to uphold in this nation. We are not just 'husband and wife.' I don't think it would have been appropriate — under any circumstances — for the nation to have seen talk about 'separation' or 'divorce' filling the air. People can call that political if they want; I call it responsible."

Such a statement would have shut people up on that question permanently, and it would have forced people who think that the Clintons don't think about anyone or anything but themselves to reconsider. Instead, viewers got more of the same-old same-old.

But that was really the only "slip" (and who knows how many saw it that way). It's been a bizarre year, one where the presidential contest has seesawed. For the longest time, this columnist thought that Gore would eke out a presidential victory and Hillary Clinton would lose in New York. Now, the way things have gone in the last couple of weeks, one might have to flip those two sentiments.

But then again...