If you came away from the vice-presidential debate Thursday night with the nagging suspicion that the wrong men are at the top of tickets, look at the bright side. For all their shortcomings, whether real or the product of partisan imaginations, Al Gore and George W. Bush have demonstrated considerable skill in selecting running mates.

The difference between Gore-Bush I of Tuesday and the debate between Joseph Lieberman and Dick Cheney was more than the difference between the formats – podiums and tables are, after all, close relatives in the furniture family. What viewers of the two events saw was the difference between canned statements sprinkled with strained zingers and polite, respectful, informed engagement.

The pleasant surprise of the evening was Mr. Cheney. With a resume – member of Congress, White House chief if staff and defense secretary – that oozes competence in foreign affairs and domestic policy at the national level, he has long been seen as an excellent choice to fill Gov. Bush’s deficiencies in those areas and that assessment was confirmed Thursday. The downside of Mr. Cheney, a reputation for being just plain dull, was shattered by several occasions in which he demonstrated true and spontaneous wit.

Sen. Lieberman came in a reputation as one of the Senate’s most knowledgeable, non-partisan and principled members. No surprises Thursday, but it was good to see those traits on uninterrupted display for a full 90 minutes.

Perhaps one reason for the elevated tone Thursday is that, unlike the presidential contenders, who are complete strangers to each other, Mr. Cheney and Sen. Lieberman have a history of working together, the Gulf War being just one example. Perhaps that’s why the only name-calling was by first names.

Despite their mateyness, the running mates did offer contrast. The sharpest disagreement was over military preparedness, with Mr. Cheney charging that the Clinton-Gore years have brought decline and low morale to the military, and the senator sharply responding that the administration is overcoming a situation it inherited. The exchange hardly settled the matter, but it was a useful reminder to voters that the problems, conflicts and issues facing this huge and demanding nation overlap administrations.

The exchange on the Middle East made the same point. It may be true, as Mr. Cheney said, that the United States had better relations with Arab nations after the Gulf War than it does now. But Sen. Lieberman certainly was correct in observing that the inconclusive end to the war, the failure to remove Saddam Hussein from power, is a significant cause of the deterioration.

Mr. Cheney’s shakiest moment came during a discussion on energy policy. His answer to the question of why as a congressman he opposed oil and gas exploration in his native Wyoming while he now supports it in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge was weak and he knew it. Sen. Lieberman’s point, that a mere three-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel efficiency would match the expected yield of the refuge was well made. The larger point, though, was that the lack of a comprehensive energy policy is not just the fault of administrations and Congresses going back more than a quarter-century, but also of a public unwilling to make even the most modest automotive sacrifice.

The way Sen. Lieberman made that point demonstrated a particular knack he has for calling upon people to follow their better instincts without sounding like a scold. It is a knack Vice President Gore would do well to develop.

The same watch-and-learn opportunity exists for Gov. Bush. One of Mr. Cheney’s favorite words, one that pops up in almost every public statement, is “effective.” If the Bush campaign was paying attention Thursday, it must have seen that the job it has given Mr. Cheney lately of documenting every occasion in which Vice President Gore might be embellishing his record is not only demeaning but hardly the most effective use of his talents. Gov. Bush says his greatest strength as a leader is the trust he places in his subordinates. The extent to which he gives his running mate a more substantive role in the campaign should give voters a strong indication of how true that is.