WELL, THAT’S better.

The second debate between Inez Tenenbaum and Jim DeMint focused more on issues and less on attacks. It dug deeper into the differences between the two on real problems that our next senator will face, and it contained a much more diplomatic tone, as I had wished in a column last week to see in the race.

In other words it was, to quote one of my in-laws, “pretty boring.”

It did lack the tension of face-to-face confrontation that the first one featured. Given my previous bellyaching about the low tone of the race, I’ll call this progress.

What this debate did contain was ideas, some particularly worthy ones. Here are the ones that jumped out at me. Some were just brushed at by the candidates as they raced through 90-second answers. But I thought them worth being aired in a contest for the United States Senate:

n • Jobs. Here’s a topic where the two candidates focused on different things, and they’re both right. Mrs. Tenenbaum made a point of mentioning that she would, as senator, pursue research grants to help South Carolina build economic “clusters” — groupings of industrial and educational know-how in specific industries.

The idea: Build South Carolina’s economic future by concentrating its limited resources and the powers of our research universities on selected industries with potential for growth. This is an important view of our future, and I’m glad to see buy-in from the Democratic nominee, since Republican Gov. Mark Sanford has been a key proponent of this view. It’s an idea that any statewide leader should boost enthusiastically.

“This will raise the quality of jobs we have here in South Carolina as well as the wages,” she said.

Mr. DeMint’s view of jobs looks, of course, through the lens of globalized trade. He rightly asserts that South Carolina must compete in a worldwide marketplace, and that the state is already too globalized to be hoping for help from trade barriers. “Almost every manufacturer imports some component part or raw product,” he noted.

He also managed to sound tough about trade violations at the same time. “China’s... still cheating,” he observed at one point.

• Prescription drugs. Rep. DeMint broke with the White House over the budget-busting Medicare prescription drug plan, which guarantees drug companies that they will get their full price. Too bad he did not choose to point out that evidence of his good judgment.

Mrs. Tenenbaum smartly homed in on one of the worst aspects of this legislation: that the federal government locked away its right to negotiate group pricing with the big pharmaceutical firms. That’s the best weapon to keep drug prices down; just ask any visiting Canadian.

• Social Security. This is one of the issues that earned Rep. DeMint his policy-wonk reputation in the House, and I thought he clearly sketched out his view that the system must reform. “The fact is that in 13 to 14 years Social Security will need to start pulling money from the general fund to meet benefits,” he said. He also did a good job of placating fears about benefit cuts.

I’m not sure that Rep. DeMint’s plan is the right answer, but there seems to be a need for action. The answer Mrs. Tenenbaum gave — don’t worry about those soon-to-retire boomers; all we’ve got to do is balance some budgets first — sounds like someone looking at dark clouds and saying, “It probably won’t rain.”

• Working together. Remember when both parties used to talk about bipartisanship? Mrs. Tenenbaum mentioned it three times, while Mr. DeMint used his question to her to make her confess that she really is a Democrat.

For a Democrat running in a state that trends Republican, talking about your openness to working with the other side is a necessary move. Even so, it’s still the right policy, especially in such politically polarized times.

The next meeting between the two candidates likely will be more contentious, if only because the moderator will be more feisty than the candidates. The two face Tim Russer on “Meet the Press” at 9 a.m. Sunday on NBC.

One prediction: Mr. Russert will try to nail down Rep. DeMint’s vague apology for his wrongheaded remarks on the qualifications of gays and unwed mothers to teach in the public schools.

Tuesday’s moderator let Mr. DeMint basically shrug the whole event off, without clarifying what he regretted or whether he still agreed with the state GOP policy against gay teachers.

Under Mr. Russert’s gaze, he won’t be so lucky.

Reach Mr. Fitts at mfitts@thestate.com.