Evaluations by local officials of Sunday night’s presidential campaign debate varied largely according to party lines, but most officials agreed on one thing—distinctions between the candidates’ platforms were clearly drawn.

Vice President George Bush and Massachussetts Governor Michael Dukakis took the stage at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., before an estimated 100 million television viewers to face the primary political issues of 1988.

The debate was the first of two scheduled before the Nov. 8 election. It was seen by many political analysts as an important opportunity for the candidates to present their respective political approaches more substantially in what State Rep. John Countryman, R-DeKalb, called “a lackluster campaign, so far.”

Countryman said after watching the debate he believed Bush came out ahead of Dukakis in his presentaton.

“Bush clearly answered the questions put to him, while Dukakis danced around the questions and seemed to rely on his prepared text,” he said.

Countryman said he thought Bush was “emphatic, although he rambled on at times,” and the vice president’s strongest argument was his defense of the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) program.

State Sen. Patrick Welch, D-Peru, said he thought “Dukakis handled himself much better” than Bush.

“As far as demeanor, Bush seemed at a loss for words. He lost his train of thought at times.” Welch cited Bush’s mention of two already-canceled weapons systems among systems he would be in favor of abandoning.

Welch said he thought it was important that Dukakis stressed his support of some defense spending to counter the “straw man” image of him asserted by Republicans.

NIU Young Democrats Chairman John Morreale said Dukakis appeared more at home than Bush in the debate surroundings. He said he believed Sunday night was the first time Dukakis has ever responded directly to “attacks against him.”

But Morreale said the most important characteristics of the debate were the “distinctions (were) drawn well” between the platforms of the two parties.

NIU College Republicans Chairman Mark Brierton backed Bush’s attack on Dukakis’ “liberalism.” But he said he, too, thought it was crucial that platform differences were emphasized.

“Those who know the issues have already made up their minds about who to vote for, but the debates will do a lot to educate those who don’t know the issues.” He added the election would not, however, hinge only on the debates.

Countryman said he believed the average American, while drawing on the debates for knowledge in voting, will wait until the last weeks of the campaign before making a hard voting decision.

M. Jack Parker, NIU professor of communication studies and director of forensics, picked Dukakis as the unofficial debate winner. “I thought Bush made excessive use of hackneyed labels … and seemed too anxious to insert prepared little jibes in his talk.”

Parker said he thought the debate turned out better than he had anticipated because the candidates mentioned “specific proposals” instead of relying solely on worn-out campaign rhetoric. “The questions were better than I thought, and Bush and Dukakis drew some distinctions I hadn’t expected,” he said. Parker was interviewed in 1976 by CBS Anchorman Dan Rather for commentary on the Gerald Ford-Jimmy Carter debate.

Philip Gray, assistant chairman of the communications studies department, said he believed both candidates spoke “articulately and intelligently,” and the next debate, scheduled for mid-October, should focus even more on topics “foremost in the voters’ minds.”