By most accounts, Hillary
Clinton won her first debate with Donald Trump.
She has been described as more professional, whereas he was blamed for becoming
too defensive. As a result, there has
been no end of suggestions as to how Trump can recover.
But several things have been
overlooked. The first is that Trump was
in a tag team match. It was him against
Hillary and the moderator Lester Holt.
Whenever Hillary needed a breather, Holt picked up the slack; whereas
she did the same for him. In other
words, it was two against one.
When Candy Crowley took
sides against Mitt Romney, she was roundly criticized. She made a serious mistake in defending Obama
and was later fact-checked. Although Holt
attacked Trump five or six times—and doubled down on several occasions—he was
essentially given a pass. Even
conservatives described him as a nice guy.
Yet consider this, when
Crowley put down Romney, Romney was critiqued for shrugging his shoulders and
letting her get away with it. This time
Trump did the opposite and was faulted for that. In other words, when the moderator is lined
up against you, it may not be possible to win.
Granted that Trump overdid
it. His thin skin often gets him in
trouble. Had he pivoted to Hillary’s
weaknesses, he would probably have been better off. Nonetheless, there is a good chance that it
would not have mattered. When it is two
to one, the one has to spend more time on the defense—which always looks bad.
There is, however, a silver
lining to this cloud. Well, there is if
Trump takes advantage of it. The nature
of the attacks against him provides a glittering opening for the later debates.
Among other things, Trump
was called out for the birther controversy and his business practices. These became the subject of extended
discussions. If Donald is smart, should
they come up again, he can dismiss them as old news. This strategy works for the Clintons. Why not him?
Meanwhile, Hillary got off
lightly on a raft of subjects. Trump was
rightly decried for leaving low hanging fruit untouched. Her attack on hackers should have been turned
against her. She should have been asked,
if hacking is such a problem, why did you open yourself to foreign spies with a
private server?
The good news is she can
still be asked. With more emails set to
be released, the question remains relevant.
It is also possible to bring up Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and a
whole host of lies—big and small. What
has not previously been scrutinized should be fair game, even if subsequent moderators
refuse to bring them up.
Trump has already been
suggesting that voters “follow the money.”
How, it may be wondered, was it possible for an ex-president and his
wife to amass hundreds of millions of dollars in few short years? What did they have to sell that was worth so
much? It is a pretty safe bet there was some
pay-for play.
Corruption is corruption and
sleaze is sleaze. Pandering is also pandering. When Hillary accused every American of
implicit bias, alarm bells should have gone off. In an effort to avoid insulting the police,
while simultaneously fawning over African-Americans, she demeaned everyone
else—except herself. This was at least
as bad as her basketful of deplorables comment.
For the moment, Hillary has
scored a few debating points. Moreover,
the media megaphone revved up to make the most of them. But how long can the glow of a perpetually
smug candidate last? Donald can be
abrasive. He is certainly no choirboy. But do we really want four more years of
Clinton slime?
The really good news is that
while first impressions matter, last impressions make more of a
difference. In the end, the only ballot
that counts is the one on election day.
If voters go to the polls with a bad taste in their mouths for a specific
candidate, this may determine their choice.
I am hoping that Trump and his people understand this.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment