Preemptive Strike

Silber was clearly anticipating Weld's line of attack, building a "preemptive" defense early in the debate. In his first turn to speak, he called on Weld to forsake negative campaigning.

"I'll restrict myself to my campaign, and you to yours," offered Silber.

Although the offer seemed disingenuous enough, analysts have questioned its sincerity, explaining that the B.U. president might be luring his opponent into an act of political suicide by making his past a sacred cow.

"It wasn't a genuine offer," said Linsky. "It was a tactical manuever."

Silber's offer left Weld in an awkward political position: either agree, and forsake a potent campaign issue in Silber's personal history, or refuse, and risk being labeled a "negative campaigner."

Predictably, Weld chose to refuse, citing the 1988 presidential campaign of Michael S. Dukakis campaign, in which the Massachusetts governor campaigned on his supposed sucess managing the state's finances. "I'm not going to permit a repeat of the 1988 campaign to occur," he said.

But although prevailing wisdom gave Silber the upper hand, experts have noted that the long-term effects of debates are often unpredictable.

"All kinds of analysts are saying Silber won," Watanable said. "I'm not convinced that that's what the public thinks."