If Ed Case's overarching campaign goal was to get himself and Daniel Akaka on a statewide stage together in a way that allows voters to decide for themselves that generational differences matter, he accomplished his objective last night.

In the first, and probably last live broadcast debate, Case clearly came across as more vigorous, more on top of his game and more, well, feisty. He took a bit of risk by directly criticizing Akaka on a number of fronts; Akaka did not fire back.

But that performance may not have been enough to claim total victory in the forum, broadcast statewide by PBS Hawai'i.

While Akaka will have to concede the personal energy plank to Case, he held his own on a number of critical policy issues posed by moderator Gerald Kato, chairman of the University of Hawai'i School of Communications.

And to television viewers, Akaka likely came across as more genuine, more comfortable in his own skin than did his challenger.

He played to that strength particularly at the end, when he closed his appearance with a forceful reminder that Hawaiian-style "values" are particularly important for any Hawai'i representative in Congress.

"We need individuals in Washington, D.C., who understand who we are as a people, who embody our ideals, beliefs and sensibilities — understanding what ohana is all about," Akaka declared at the end.

Said Case: "It is time for a change. Time for new blood. Time to move on."

With only a handful of searing differences on local or national policy issues dividing the two men, voters will be paying particular attention to these "human" qualities as they make their choice.

One clear theme: Akaka, generally the more liberal of the two candidates, seemed more direct in his responses on key questions such as the war in Iraq or federal tax policy.

That's because by definition, Case — who has positioned himself in the moderate middle — had to take a more nuanced, one might even say balanced, stand on many of the issues.

For example, Akaka said flatly he was opposed to tax cuts in these days of soaring deficits and huge national debts. Case had to say he was against some tax cuts, but not all.

On Iraq, Akaka was able to say bluntly he wants the U.S. to get out by a certain date, creating pressure on the Iraqi government to get its act together.

Case said he wants to get out, but only when it is determined that the Iraqis have a functioning government and competent security apparatus. To pull out on a firm timetable, he said, "would create chaos."

This doesn't make Akaka correct or Case wrong, but to television viewers, such "no nuance" answers may have been easier to grasp.

At the same time, however, when a question didn't speak directly to Akaka's prime campaign positions, he appeared to struggle for an answer, frequently looking down at briefing notes and papers he brought with him.

Case, by contrast, took each question and often reframed the context before answering, usually without notes and speaking to the camera.

Case frequently criticized Akaka directly, in fairly personal terms. At one point, for instance, he declared that he "refuses to live in Sen. Akaka's party-first, party-always world."

Akaka didn't take that attack route. But the 81-year-old senator still managed to get Case's goat a little bit by referring frequently and sometimes humorously to his age, as if that were Case's only issue.

"This candidacy has never been about age," Case insisted forcefully. "It has always been about transition."

Reach Jerry Burris at jburris@honoluluadvertiser.com.