In a media-driven age, television debates are expected to make a difference in political campaigning. It all depends on the candidates and the issues that concern them. The debate between Mr Al Gore and Mr George W. Bush - the first of three in the closing stages of this US presidential election - is not expected to change many voters' views on the merits of their policies and abilities for the job, even though many of them were paying close attention for the first time.
Although Mr Gore was judged marginally the winner on substance, Mr Bush acquitted himself well by communicating effectively the substantially different agendas driving the two main parties. It still looks like the closest race for decades.
Mr Bush has managed to retrieve his position, after Mr Gore successfully took the initiative for several weeks following the Democratic National Convention and established a significant lead in the opinion polls. Mr Gore played to his strengths as a highly experienced policy practitioner and analyst and his commitment to a repertoire of relatively radical positions on wealth distribution, taxation, the abuse of corporate power, health and education. This is intended to consolidate the Democrats' traditional base - and to demonstrate the party's appeal to middle-class swing voters, who have found it more and more difficult to maintain their living standards even during the long boom of the 1990s. Mr Gore's main message is that a victory for the Republicans would jeopardise continuing growth and prosperity established during the Clinton years.
Mr Gore hammered away at these themes in the debate. He managed to avoid the wooden image that has dogged him, although he could not disguise his impatience with assumed inadequacies of his opponent's responses. Mr Gore would need to curb that instinct the next time around, since such apparent discourtesy can play unexpectedly strongly with voters who rely on these television encounters to make psychological judgments on the two candidates.
Mr Bush was not defeated or knocked sideways by this encounter and remains very much in the race. That is the significance of his performance. The negative stereotype of a gaffe-prone incompetent was left decidedly unconfirmed. Mr Bush clearly expressed his preference for low taxation, states rights and limits to the judicial activism of the US Supreme Court - all clear markers of his party's distinctive approach. He now faces the difficult task of determining the political agenda in the closing stages of the campaign.
Although it is a close contest, it remains a rather flat and uninspiring campaign. There was little passionate disagreement or inspirational rhetoric in the first television debate. Both men seem inhibited by the very closeness of the race - and neither as yet displays a commanding leadership potential. It would be a pity if their civility, which has so much to commend it, should make for a bland final four weeks of campaigning. There is a great deal at stake in the outcome. It will have a real impact on the rest of the world given the facts of US super-powerdom - such as whether its economy has a soft or hard landing, the effects on political and trade diplomacy, and the use of its armed might in the international arena. Foreign policy issues are not prominent in the arguments, but they could become more important in the closing stages of the campaign, as both men search for differentiating and appealing issues.