sense of personal outrage. perhaps a little bit of it might have been a very good thing. >> yeah, and of course, dukakis was the monotonic robo candidate. this was the issue of crime that the bush administration attacked him on with the willy horton campaign. there's a lot going on, but i have a much better question than mine coming from one of my students, chris mclaughlin. >> kind of piggy backing on that, you kind of answered my question a little bit already, but i look at the question to dukakis and to gingrich as trap questions that are just intended to get a rise out of people. and do you think that those things happen in the general election, there's only a few weeks before the actual question can be asked, before the actual vote, so in the case of gingrich, people got to actually see that he wasn't qualified to be president and moved on from

him, but when you have three weeks between a debate and a general election, and people throw out questions like they did to dukakis, do you think that hurts the process and that those thing need to be eliminated, or do you think they should be commonplace? >> oalthough they're two different points in the process, too, which is a key element. >> i think, chris, that one of the things you need to remember is that the responsibility that the moderators of the general election debates feel is quite different. they're journalists just like the people you have seen in the primary debates clips. but the onus when you know that you are days and weeks out from the election, you're absolutely right, is one that you had best not squander this time. you had best really focus on those issues that are very important for people to understand more about the candidates. i'm not aware of any moderator we have had who purposely asked a question that they thought was

a gotcha question or anire responsible approach to a serious issue. as bob said earlier, this cuts to the question of crime, and it was not meant to be something that put governor dukakis on his heels. it was meant to say, would you change your position on the death penalty? so again, it highlights, if anything, the importance of the role of the moderator, which is absolutely central as you have seen in all of the clips. >> presidential debates, your website, if students have questions, ideas, how can they participate? >> let us know, know on the website, give us a whistle, if you're serious about it, you can find my specific e-mail through c-span. it will not surprise any of you, maybe disappoint you that we get an incredible amount of very,

very bad communications kwrb squall wr you'll see we're not the easiest to find of anyone out there, but we welcome serious common tentc. i'm honored to be a part of these classes here for a long time, and i'm really grateful that all of you are studying this and trying to understand what goes into it. we would love to hear from you if you have ideas about either the debates themselves, social media, or things your classes would like to do around the debates. that would be great. >> let's go back with more questions. aerial giordano, you're next. go ahead. >> hi, ms. brown. as a co-captain of the debate team at my university, a big issue tends to be the judge or a moderator who is unbiased. what qualifications does the commission use to choose a moderator and how do you prevent them being a player in the debate versus leading it. >> you should be sitting in my

chair and i should sit in yours. we have three critericriteria. the first is they be individuals that are very familiar with the candidates and issues, who have followed the campaigns and know the issues upside down. two, that they're experienced in hard news, television, life broadcasts. you forget that most of what we see on television is taped and edited. the debates are live. there's no going back. there is no fixing something that didn't go

you're absolutely right. it's a central role for you with the judge, it's a central role for the moderator in the general election debate. >> let's go back to 1988 and again, what a year it was for you. one year out, not only that moment that we saw with michael dukakis and cnn's bernard shaw, but the forum in which you had among those asking the questions, brett hume, tom brokaw of nbc news. it was the only vice preside presidential debate, although there was one in 1976, they came back in 1988 and let's show what happened in this vp debate. >> i will be prepared to carry out the responsibilities of the pres dnlsy of the united states of america, and i will be prepared to do that. i will be prepared not only because of my service in the congress, but because of my ability to communicate and to lead. it's not just age, it's

accomplishment, it's experience. i have far more experience than many others that sought the office of environment of this country. i have as much experience in the congress as jack kennedy did when he sought the presidency. i will be prepared to deal with the people in the bush administration that unfortunate event that occurs. >> senator? >> senator, i served with jack kennedy, i knew jack kennedy. jack kennedy was a friend of mine. senator, you're no jack kennedy. what has to be done in a situation like that, in a situation like that --

>> you're only taking time away from your own candidate. >> that was really uncalled for, senator. >> you're the one that was making the comparison, senator. and i'm one who knew him well. and frankly, i think you're so far from the objectives you choose for your country, that i did not think the comparison was well taken. >> these are the moments that we remember, but they also go to the core issue of experience and how you think on your feet. >> this an example of one of those things. you go back to several questions that have been asked. you could not predict this. political lore says that both campaigns had anticipated that this might come up, and that one campaign in particular thought it would be better not raised by their candidate. i don't have any confirmation of that, but the fact is that once

senator benson heard the comparison, he commented on it, and it elicited an immediate response, as you could see, that judy woodruff had a hard time getting under control. those can't be predicted any more than mr. reagan's comparing himself to mr. mondale and their age difference and saying he wouldn't take advantage of it and turn something that had been seen as a liability for the president into in fact a strength because of mr mr. mondale's response. so these are moments, and they happen. and the audience as well as the home audience will respond. viscerally, and there is nothing to be done about that, nor should one want to control the. >> steven kennedy from st. peters college, part of the washington project this semester. steve? >> good afternoon, ms. brown. in his new book, jim lehrercites

a conversation he had with george w. bush, and in his opinion of the debate, he said some of it is contrived and there's a certain artificiality to it. he thought it wasn't a true judge of the ability of a candidate to think on their feet and give an honest answer. what are your responses to this? >> this is an opinion that president bush has held for a long time. i think some of it goes back to the 1992 town meeting debates in richmond which was a new format. i don't think the president was very comfortable with it. so he doesn't like this venue, this forum, and he's been repeatedly consistent in talking with jim and others about that fact. there is no question all you need to do is look at the 1996

debates, there were two of them between mr. clinton and senator dole. senator dole was not happy, comfortable with the television medium as then president clinton was. and that's going to come along with the candidates. there are some that are better at some things, more comfortable at some things than others. and you will take that away from these images. but as long as the american public finds televised general election debates something that is valuable in terms of information, then the images and the television experience that goes into the format that is something that will come along for the ride, at whatever point it turns out that these have run their course, obviously, the candidates will think of a better way to reach the public. >> comes to us from a different perspective from a student north of the border in calgary, roman, you're next. >> good afternoon, ms. brown.

my question is to due, actually, interestingly enough, the last clip has a little to do with it, but i'm curious about how effective vice presidential debates are in the general election, especially considering the fact that on a number of occasions like this one, actually, when lloyd benson asked his famous line as well as perhaps in 2008 with sarah palin's performance against joe biden, you would think that that would have an effect on the election, but in the end, it did not. what's your take on this? >> before we answer that, let me show one moment from the 2008 debate as sarah palin and joe biden entered the stage. let's watch. >> nice to meet you. can i call you joe? thank you.

>> two moments in vice presidential debate history? >> roman, these are revealing. they don't have the same prominence as the presidential debates do, but if you look at history going back even -- only if you go back to fdr do you see how many times a vice president has played a critical role in our nation's history, if not immediately, then one election later, perhaps. and while it's not necessarily the case that they sell the difference in the election, there are certainly places where it has made a huge difference. and one that had personal meaning for me is going back to that '76 series of debates where senator dole had been picked up on the ticket by president ford fairly late in the election process, november of '75.

and senator dole was not particularly comfortable with the tv medium. he did not do what was perceived to be a very effective job in that debate, and given how close that race was in closing at the end, there are people that make the case that that could have been the difference. so it's an interesting issue. and i do think that if you look at '08, the clip that steve showed, that was the biggest audience of any of the 2008 debates. people do tune in and they go away with information and impressions that they find helpful or at least different. >> the role of a debate in a primary is certainly very different than in a general election because there is the sorting out process. and there's no so-called invisible primary where you can run the year before the election and try to hone your message and then be prepared for the national spotlight. that's different now because of the debates and the way technology is.

i want to go back to one debate out of detroit, michigan, november of last year. this is probably the singular moment that governor rick perry lost his momentum and ultimately was forced to drop out of the race. >> it's three agencies of government when i get there that are gone. commerce, education, and -- what's the third one there? let's see. >> you mean five. >> commerce, education, and the -- um -- >> epa? >> epa. >> seriously? >> is epa the one you were talking about? >> no, sir. we were talking about the agencies of government. epa needs to be rebuilt, no doubt about it. >> but you can't name the third one? >> the third agency of government, i would do away with the education, the -- commerce, and let's see.

i can't, the third one, i can't. sorry. oops. >> janet brown? >> any of us who have gone into a test, as you get to the question, you get to the little bubble you're supposed to fill in, whatever, and you just can't get there, this happens. this is human. unfortunately, in a debate where people are looking, as you said, to winnow down a large field to the people they believe are the best to serve, they'll take something away from that moment. is that fair? is that a legitimate test of someone's ability to govern? i can't answer that, but those moments do happen. >> back to bob lictor at george mason university. bob, first of all, your thoughts? you have seen this debate moment in the past. and you have probably written about it as well. >> well, i'm uncomfortably near the issue of senior moments in

my life, but you can see there a candidate who made a mistake, had a brain freeze, and didn't know how to cope with it. that was an interesting thing. other candidates have been able to slide over this kind of problem, where as he clearly didn't have the experience of trying to think on his feet in this sort of high-pressure situation. and i think it wasn't simply his failure to remember that third one. everybody has to sympathize with that, but hisesh cruciating inability to cope with the fact that he had forgotten that one. you have to believe someone like a ronald reagan or a jack kennedy would have come up with a quip to get himself out of that. but with that, we go to ray. >> i was actually going to ask a question similar to the last one about the debates. at first, i was going to ask how would you characterize the influence of the debates, how

important are they to the final aspect of the pres dnlsy? >> for many of the candidates, dan quayle in 1988, bob dole in 1976, sarah palin in 2008, it's the first chance that these folks are on a national stage. they have debated before but never with this kind of pressure. >> that's right. and so the experience all by itself is different. the exposure is different. and the way it is perceived by the public is a little bit unpredictable. one of the most poignant comments we ever heard was from president carter talking about the 1976 debates when he described himself as a not very well known governor from georgia. on the stage with not only the sitting president but the sitting president who had brought the country through the watergate mess, and pointed out what a huge moment it was for him as a politician and a

citizen because he admired so much what president ford had done, and this terrible crisis that he had stepped into. so the dynamics that attach to the event itself and to the fact you have individuals standing there, as i told you, steve, and i mentioned earlier today, when bernie shaw asked that question of governor dukakis, i had a line of sight because of where we are at the production people, where i was looking directly at mrs. dukakis when it was asked. i remember looking at her face and thinking, wow, this is where the rubber meets the road. this is the direct deal. this is the real thing. and it's hard. and the person answering may have not felt well, may have answered it correctly four days before, but he was her husband. he's a man, legahe's somebody w felt what he took in and to go to what bob just said, didn't have the best way of dealing with it, just the way governor perry may not have, but it's

very helpful to remember these are individuals who have decided to make the tough choice to go out and expose themselves and their records, and everything about their lives to the american public and the world public. and try to make the case to the fact they're the ones you should support. >> let me frame the next reference point to something everyone can understand. people who watch the debates may be deeply involved in politics and policy or they may be casual observers or may be for the first time focusing on the candidates in the race. you have a wide audience coming at it from a different perspective. this moment from st. louis in 2000, many people refer to it as the in your face, in your face moment. others call it, you know, the kid in the playground, the bull y in the playground trying to one-up the other kid. let me show this to the students and get your reaction. >> would you agree on the

national patient's bill of right? >> absolutely not. i refer to the dingle-norwood bill, the bipartisan bill now pending in the congress. the hmos andhmos and the insura companies support the other bill that's pending. the one that the republican majority has put forward. they like it because it doesn't accomplish what i think really needs to be accomplished to give the decisions back to the doctors and nurses and to give you a right of appeal to somebody other than the hmo or insurance company, let you go to the nearest emergency room without having to call an hmo before you call 911, to let you see a specialist if you need to. and it has strong bipartisan support. it is being blocked by the republican leadership and the congress. and i specifically would like to know governor bush will support the dingle-norwood bill which is the main one pending. >> governor bush, you may answer that if i'd like. also i'd like to see the differences between the two of you and then we'll move on. >> well, the difference is that

i can get it done, that i can get something positive done on behalf of the people. that's what the question in this campaign is about. it's not only what's your philosophy and what your position is. but can you get things done? and i believe i can. >> what about the norwood bill? >> i'm not quite -- let me finish the question. >> all right. >> and then they went into the substance of the issue. that was only about a three or four-second minute. jim herer's book outlines in greater detail exactly what he was feeling as the moderator and the title of chapter 5 is "the big sighs" because many people remember the first debate in which al gore was often sighing at bush's response. so there's a history to what led up to this moment. >> the gore campaign was having a hard time figuring out what the right strategy was. and there were different

wardrobes used. there were different tactics used in terms of the way that mr. gore presented himself. this, in particular, got a lot of people's attention and rubbed them the wrong way. a lot of people watched that particularly women and found it something that was a use of space. that they didn't find palatable. but again, this is something that people watch on the stage, especially in these formats where there is the ability to move around. and, again, you're going to take away messages that may be quite subconscious or at least subtle about your impression of these candidates based on the way they move and the way they confront each other and the moderator. and in that case the town meeting participants. >> as you look at that debate moment from 2000, what are your thoughts? >> well, that shows that it's not just what you say, but your whole persona. the sense you give of yourself as a person accounts in the

debates and that sort of menacing walk-over reminded me of the very different problem that the first president bush had happening to look at his watch while someone else was speaking at the town meeting debate and having it interpreted as, he wasn't interested in being there. so you don't just have to have the right answers. you have to have the whole right way of presenting yourself to the american public as a credentialed president, and that means body language as well as verbia verbiage. >> if you could be prepared to respond to this next piece of video we're going to show. speaking about being uncomfortable, janet brown, this is from one of the primary debates. romney asked about his net income, assets and his taxes. let's watch. >> governor romney, when will we see yours? >> when my taxes are complete for this year. and i know that if i'm the nominee, the president's going to want to insist that i show what my income was this last year and so forth. when they're completed this year in april, i'll release my

returns in april and probably for other years as well. i know that's what's going to come. every time the democrats are out there trying their very best to try and attack people because they've been successful. and i have been successful. >> why not should the people of south carolina before this election see last year's return? >> because i want to make sure that i beat president obama. and every time we release things, the democrats go out with another array of attacks. as in the past, if i'm the nominee, i'll put these out at one time so we have one discussion of all of this. i obviously pay all full taxes. i'm honest in my dealings with people. people understand that. my taxes are carefully managed. and i pay a lot of taxes. i've been very successful. and what i have are taxes ready for this year. i'll release them. >> back in 1967, your father set a what was then a ground did braebing standard in american politics. he released his tax returns.

he released them for not one year but 12 returns. when he did that, he said this. one year could be a fluke perhaps done for show. when you release yours, will you follow your father's example? >> maybe. you know, i don't know how many years i'll release. i'll take a look at what our documents are. and i'll release multiple years. i don't know how many years, but i'll be happy to do that. >> so first let me go to julia whitney, one of my students at the washington center as we get this reaction from one of the primary debates. julia? >> i kind of see this as a nonissue. i just -- i just feel like the debate should be focused more on other issues, more important things. i kind of think that he shouldn't release them. you shouldn't punish people for being successful. i kind of can see where people would want to see them, but i think they should focus on something else honestly.

>> it's also an issue when you have 24, 25 debates, you run out of questions. you have to look at every aspect of a person's life in these primary debates. >> i think that's a valid question. and also if your stated purpose as the debate sponsor and the sponsors of these primary debates are commercial entities. if you want to build audiences and you will look for issues to ask the candidates that are -- that may border on titillating or controversial, they may -- julia may be right. they may not be the ones that you think are most important. but, in fact, you think, okay. this is going to get a response. from a segment of the audience that is supporting the other republican primary candidates. so let's go for it. >> so let's go back to another commission debate moment. 1992 was a transformational year on a number of fronts. a town hall meeting, the first time you've done that. the single moderator format as opposed to multiple questioners.

and three candidates in these debates. george herbert walker bush, sitting president, bill clinton and ross perot. >> this was an amazing year. and we did all four debates in eight days. a trick you should not try at home. mr. perot was someone who had been in the race in the spring, then had gotten out in the summer, then came back in and was not receiving federal funds but was using his very sizeable personal funds. so when he was in the race in the spring, actually had bought enough advertising and gotten his message out enough so that at one point he was leading the other two parties' supposed nominee or incumbent. that is quite an astonishing thing. along come the debates, and a lot of people had assumed mr. perot was basically a one-issue candidate. so they tuned in not only because it turned into a very compact week-long schedule and

there were new formats, as you just mentioned, but people were curious as to whether or not he had informed opinions on other issues. and when they learned that he did, they kept coming back to keep watching. it was an amazing week. and the audiences were huge. >> let's turn to one moment and the issue of bill clinton's experience, his role as an antiwar protester when he was a student in england came up. here you had a sitting president who served in world war ii as an 18, 19-year-old flight pilot and then this moment in which bush went after governor bill clinton. of course the clinton campaign ready for a response. >> i said something the other day where i was accused of being like joe mccarthy because i questioned -- i'll put it this way. i think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize demonstrations against your own country in foreign soil.

i just think it's wrong. now, maybe they say, well, it was a youthful indiscretion. i was 19 or 20 flying off an aircraft carrier, and that shaped me to be commander in chief of the armed forces. and i'm sorry, but demon separating -- it's not a question of patriotism. it's a question of character and judgment. they get on me, bill's gotten on me about "read my lips." when i make a mistake, i'll admit it. but he has made -- not admitted a mistake, and i just find it impossible to understand how an american can demonstrate against his own country in a foreign land, organizing demonstrations against it when young men are held prisoner in hanoi or kids out of the ghetto were drafted. some say, well, you're a little old-fashioned. maybe i am, but i just don't think that's right. now, whether it's character or judgment, whatever it is, i have a big difference here on this issue. and so we'll just have to see how it plays out.