It was tough to feel bad for Gore after his schizophrenic performances in the first two debates -- hyper-aggressive, then overcompensatingly passive -- that added up to a one-two swing-and-a-miss. Gore's had a quarter-century career of nastiness, so for him to be slammed for being too obnoxious in the first debate, and then double-slammed for being falsely wimpy in the second, seemed like poetic justice.

But it was the Texas governor whose karma caught up with him this night. A lifetime -- surely a campaign season -- of coasting, not enough of that fancy book-learnin', came back and took a Texas-size chomp from his Lone Star ass. The Chevy Chase of American politics phoned in a real dud of a performance Tuesday night, trying to slide by on charm and little else.

Sure, Gore was overeager and sometimes smug. He's Gore. But from the very first question about "HMOs and insurance companies making the critical decisions that affect people's lives," the 100-plus Missouri residents asking the pre-screened questions sought specifics Gore was ready to give them. Conversely, Bush smirked and chortled, and while that probably went over super swell at the DKE house, it allowed Gore to pick him apart in the back-and-forth the format permitted.

Now, it's entirely possible that Bush's flat-lined performance was on purpose. Gore was extremely forceful -- even seeming to invade Bush's space once, approaching him while asking for an answer -- and there's no telling how that will play. But in general, Gore killed Bush on the issues. His seemed to be a 90-minute performance-art piece dedicated to the virtues of substance over style. Of course, me being completely wrong wouldn't be entirely unprecedented, and focus groups immediately after the debate indicated anything from mixed reviews to a Bush win.

As one Texas political reporter who called the night a draw said to me, "Bush gave the TV networks enough to pick apart for the next two days. The question is whether they'll do it."

If they don't, it won't be for lack of material. Time and time again, Gore ripped away at Bush's veneer, telling the audience that beneath it all lay a candidate who opposes them on the issues.

After the first question, Gore expressed his support for the bipartisan House version of the patients bill of rights, offered by Reps. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., and John Dingell, D-Mich. "It is actually a disagreement between us," Gore said for the first of what would be many times. Norwood-Dingell, he pointed out, "I support and the governor does not."

Bush leapt to one of the most compelling arguments for his election -- that he has worked in Texas in a bipartisan fashion. "I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas to get a patients bill of rights through," Bush said. "It requires a different kind of leadership style to do it, though. You see, in order to get something done on behalf of the people, you have to put partisanship aside. And that's what we did in my state."

Problem is, when people talk about a "patients bill of rights," they mean - as the questioner directly asked -- "Why aren't the HMO's and insurance companies held accountable for their decisions?" Allowing patients to sue their HMOs or insurance companies is the pivotal difference between Norwood-Dingell and the watered-down GOP leadership "patients bill of rights" bills that Bush supports.

In Texas, Bush fought against the right to sue harder than he fought against almost anything else. One of his first actions just after being elected governor, during the 1995 legislative session, was to veto a patients bill of rights offered by a conservative Republican. To his credit, he then instructed his insurance commissioner to enact by law several of the less-controversial provisions of the bill. But when the right to sue came up again in 1997, with the threat of a veto-proof majority, Bush let it pass without his signature.

So, of course, Bush opposes Norwood-Dingell. That didn't stop him from pledging, "It's time for our nation to come together and do what is right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. I support a national patients bill of rights, Mr. Vice President." Despite the fact that such a pledge is not really true.

"I referred to the Dingell-Norwood bill," Gore said. "It's the bipartisan bill now pending in the Congress. The HMOs and insurance companies support the other bill that's pending, the one the Republican majority has put forward. They like it because it doesn't accomplish what I think needs to be accomplished ... It has strong bipartisan support. It's being blocked by the Republican leadership in the Congress. I want to know whether Gov. Bush will support the Dingell-Norwood bill which is the main one pending."

Bush again dodged it. "The difference is I can get it done," Bush said. Gore stepped toward him. Bush nodded his head, surprised Gore was there. "That I can get something positive done on behalf of the people," Bush said. "That's what the question in this campaign is about."

Finally, moderator Jim Lehrer stepped in. "What about the Dingell-Norwood bill?" he asked the governor.

Bush didn't answer the question. Again. And he misrepresented his record, saying, "People take their HMO insurance company to court; that's what I've done in Texas and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington" while somehow failing to mention that he fought that provision tooth and nail.

Less than an hour into it, Bush seemed drained. Seventy-seven minutes into it, you could barely hear him. Seventy-nine minutes into it, the cameras caught his wife, Laura Bush, with a gloomy expression on her face.

Salon News A Salon-eye view of the day's news, with investigative reports, analysis and interviews with newsmakers.