NO SURPRISE: DEBATE-WATCHERS CAN'T AGREE ON WINNER

Who won Wednesday night's second presidential debate between Republican Bob Dole and President Clinton?

It depends on who you talk to.

"It's not that either one is losing or winning the debate, but what it comes down to is the ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats," said Kendra Foster, a Clinton supporter. "I think right now, because the economy's going so well, people tend to side with who's in the White House -- who happens to be a Democrat."

According to Rick Althaus, Allen Null and Foster, Clinton was the better candidate. But just across town, Richard Harter, Carrie Peterman and Doug Downs heartily disagreed.

"I really think Bob Dole did a more effective job of highlighting new ground," Harter, of Cape Girardeau, said. "I think he made points pointedly. I wouldn't necessarily call them attacks. Basically he called issues to the floor that reminded the voters of what they've all seen in the news."

"The only thing Bob Dole has done is come out slinging mud," Null, who works in siding and wholesaling in Cape Girardeau, said. "He's avoided most of the questions and Clinton has had a good response to everything Dole slings at him."

Dole had said he might go on the attack against Clinton's character. Few of the local debate-watchers felt that Dole was overly aggressive.

"Besides the arguing back and forth at the beginning, the end really summed it up for me and made me feel that Dole was the winner," said Peterman, a Southeast Missouri University student. "I had been looking for some time for some sort of mention of morals and values. I think that is an integral part of being the president of the United States."

"I think Dole's objective was to call the attention of the public to the president and potential character issues," Althaus, a political science professor at the university, said. "I don't think it seems to be resonating, at least not with the people I'm sitting with."

Downs, who said he is an independent but still believes Dole was the victor, believes the moral issue was handled well by Dole.

"He brought up the issue of ethics without attacking Clinton's personal life," he said. "I think it is extremely important to have an ethical president. There has to be a way to say that politely."

The town-meeting type of debate format was different than the candidates' first meeting and was given better ratings by both parties.

"The people that asked the questions asked the questions that are really on the minds of the American people not necessarily on the mind of some talking-head journalist," Harter said.

"This is real people asking what they care about," Foster said. "Real people asking real questions."

One real question asked by the public panel was about Dole's age, which drew diverse opinions from the debate watchers.

"They both handled it well," Althaus said. "This is something Dole can't deny so he tried to make light of it. And the president tried to say that people shouldn't be discriminated against because of their age but yet he has old ideas and that's what the problem is."

"I think Bill Clinton lied and I think Bob Dole avoided," Harter said.

Everyone watching the debate drew something a little different out of it.

"People vote on the economy," Foster said. "And no matter how much Dole wants to talk about character problems the people will be voting from what they see with their finances. It's good and people hold Clinton responsible for that."

"The one theme that was struck throughout was struck by Bob Dole," Harter said, "and that was trust."

"I think Dole came across more personable and I think he came across more aggressive," Peterman said. "I think the combination led to a stronger image. Which is what he needs right now."