BOSTON--At last night's debate between Gov. William F. Weld '66 and gubernatorial hopeful and state representative Mark Roosevelt '78 (D-Beacon Hill), "opportunity" was the magic word.

For Roosevelt, "opportunity" was the main message in a campaign pushing reform. Opportunity was what Roosevelt promised to provide--more jobs, more education, more government assistance to the disadvantaged.

But the only opportunity that Weld mentioned was the opportunity to serve four more years in the governor's seat--an opportunity that he seems almost sure to win on Election Day.

This conflict between Roosevelt's themes of reform and Weld's confident defense of the status quo defined last night's debate.

Roosevelt, who is lagging in the polls, attacked Weld on his political record rather than on the issues.

"It's astonishing you're still telling people what you want to do," Roosevelt said to Weld as he criticized the governor's progress on welfare reform.

The accusations flew when an audience member asked the candidates what issue was so central to their platform that they'd be willing to buck the tide of public opinion.

Roosevelt named his opposition to casino gambling and his support for the 1989 Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights Bill. Weld mentioned that he had eventually supported the bill, but did not answer the question specifically.

After Roosevelt fielded questions about his low attendance record in the state legislature, he accused Weld of flip-flopping on a wide variety of issues, from the civil rights bill to casino gambling.

"Casinos hurt communities, kill jobs and send the wrong message to children," Roosevelt said. "Either you're born lucky like the Governor and I were, or you get lucky at the blackjack table."

Roosevelt's opposition to gambling on moral grounds has been the centerpiece of his approach to solving the state's toughest problems. The candidate also expressed his support for education and the rehabilitation of both criminals and the rehabilitation of both criminals and welfare recipients.

Weld's focus was much more optimistic, stressing numbers and data about the issues.

The governor, however, conceded that there were four fronts which he needed to work on: crime, education, jobs and welfare.

But Roosevelt charged that Weld had merely mentioned the matters that voters had expressed concerns about in statewide polls.

"You're still playing to people's fears and pushing the hot buttons," Roosevelt told Weld. "That tells me nothing about you as a person."

"The values that are important to me are the values people out there think are important," Weld responded.

Strategic Attacks

Roosevelt's strategic attacks on Weld's record were not surprising, considering the similarity between the candidates' platforms.

Weld and Roosevelt both favor welfare reform and education reform. They both promise to get tough on crime and to bring more jobs to the state.

And Roosevelt, unlike most Democrats, supports the death penalty, while Weld, unlike many Republicans, supports abortion rights.

Roosevelt accused Weld of a variety of misdeeds, from corrupt dealings on the Central Artery Project to his failure to come through on his 1990 promises. But to each attack, Weld responded nonchalantly.

Members of the audience said Roosevelt was the better debater.

"I did sense that Mark Roosevelt was a little nervous at the beginning," said David F. Kennedy, of Hull, Mass. "But Roosevelt was the pit bull of the debate."

"{Weld} doesn't have a lot up there to talk about," said Westford resident Gus Bickford, adding that Weld was often "slow on the uptake."

"He can't talk about crime because the fact is there are less police than there were four years ago," Bickford said.

John Menard, chair of the state Democratic party, said Weld's habit of succumbing to public opinion was the most important issue raised in the debate.

"You can't run the governor's office by polling," Menard said. "It's unfair to the people of Massachusetts to prey on their fears."

But though most agreed that Roosevelt had done the better debating, not all spectators were convinced that the newcomer had walked away with the victory over an incumbent who never lost his cool