We already know what will happen during the debate. Clinton will be in command of facts and policies, and will be able to clearly articulate how these policies will help Americans. She will clarify what she meant by the “basket of deplorable” comment, in a way that will satisfy Democrats and get Republicans’ backs even further up. Based on her overall performance, the worst you will be able to accuse her of is being too optimistic, a common political trait.
Trump will try to hide his ignorance through bluster and try to derail the questions with inflammatory and WTF statements that last long enough to get him to the next one. He will tell a large number of outright lies. The only question is whether he will choose to do it in a low key way, or try to do it primary style, behaving like a cretin. To me right now, it looks like all signs point towards this being a sad replay of the disastrous “Commander in Chief Forum”.
Trump supporters and the media think that if he does go low key, then that will be enough. All that matters is style, how likable the candidate appears. We evidently are electing a talk show host, not a President who for the next four years will have a great impact on the peace and prosperity of the world. Even if voters do believe style is all, and I certainly hope not, somehow the press doesn’t feel it is their duty to point out that it is far from the most important characteristic for choosing a President.
The broadcast media have already admitted, by their own words, that they cower in fear of the right wing calling them biased. Candy Crowley rightly corrected Romney when he claimed that Obama never said the day after that the attack on the Benghazi consulate that it was a terrorist act. It should not be up to the opponent to have to correct an easily checked fact, when no ambiguity is involved. It does have more credibility when coming from the ostensibly neutral moderator. If it does involve calling out clearly established facts and lies, it is in fact neutral. And just because one side will produce a torrent of such lies, does not absolve the moderator from this responsibility.
There will certainly be more questions on emails, brought up “to provide balance” (otherwise those terrifying righties will scream), although there should not be. The WaPo has already editorialized that the email story is out of control, and yesterday’s NYT editorial endorsing Clinton said that in comparison to some of Trump’s activities, the emails should be a problem “for the help desk”. All these questions will do is give Clinton a chance to repeat what she has already said many times before, when she could be talking about policies to help all Americans. If she doesn’t confess to her non-existent “crimes”, she will be accused of being unresponsive and “lawyerly”, and “parsing”. The latter words are my suggestions for a debate wrap-up drinking contest — make sure to have your emergency response phone numbers close at hand. Or maybe it would be safer for us to pass out debate wrap-up bingo cards and award prizes.
This and the Benghazi “scandal” show in a completely transparent fashion what the right wing is trying to accomplish, but somehow the media cannot figure it out for the life of themselves. Benghazi was seamlessly transferred from in 2012 an indictment of Obama, to in 2016 one of Clinton. The press somehow does not have a long enough attention span to recall this fact. The email contretemps are exactly the same, fueled by millions of dollars in right wing expenditures, and for the Republicans, it has been a good investment, they are probably amazed at how effective these smears have been at bringing down Hillary’s trust numbers. But they shouldn’t be. Remember how they turned Kerry’s wartime heroics against him? Purple Heart bandaids? More importantly, this has always been a glaring weakness of the press, in their quest for “objectivity”. Joe McCarthy played them in exactly the same fashion. It was only because we had an Edward R. Murrow at the time speaking out in a brilliant episode of CBS’s “See it Now” that his outrageous tower of lies, so similar to Trump’s today, began to crumble. Sadly, there is absolutely no member of the press of anywhere near his stature in today’s pathetic corporate media mishmash.
The thing is that Gish Gallops and endless bluster may win a debate. It certainly does when your audience is Republican primary voters. It is an open question whether it will happen Monday night with a broader audience. As I’ve said, the Commander in Chief Forum and response to it do not give me comfort.
The rub is, that you absolutely cannot govern in the same fashion. You cannot cram for the Presidency. Yes, Clinton is studying briefing books for the debate, but she already has at her disposal vast quantities of knowledge that will help her to make wise decisions. This includes experience of some past decisions that did not turn out as she hoped. Trump has none of this knowledge, and it is too late to learn at this point, which he isn’t interested in doing in any case. It does not help at all that he may hire those apocryphal “good people”, because he will have no basis when hearing conflicting opinions from them to decide which to follow. He will listen to the loudest voice, or the most authoritative sounding, or the toughest tough guy, or whatever. We’ve already seen that he has an absurd need to jump to unwarranted conclusions immediately, to show that he “has the best brain”. Imagine if we had such a President during the Cuban Missile Crisis! It is not an exaggeration to say we may well not now be here. It can be that serious, folks, and it can develop in the wink of an eye, coming seemingly out of nowhere, especially if you are not paying attention, a Trump trait. There is a reason why nearly all those with past experience in national security are voting for Hillary Clinton.
So, for the good of the nation, Lester Holt and the following moderators, really should have the guts to seriously learn from the Commander in Chief Forum. This is not entertainment — it is an awesome responsibility. They need to drop the email questions. When the right wingers squeal afterwards, the response is that they have already been endlessly litigated, there is no reason to hear any of this again. The same for Benghazi. When the election is over, you will never hear a peep about these issues again. They will be in the rearview mirror, their usefulness to the Republican monster Wurlitzer expended. That is unless Trump does get elected, in which case don’t be surprised if we have Soviet style show trials. It can’t happen here? With enough right wing judges, including a rash of Supreme Court appointments, don’t bet the farm. Who would have thought, before they did it, that the Court would give us the horrifying Citizen’s United decision, overturning a century of established law, which put our government up for sale? If the worst happens, many of us will be asking what we could have done that we didn’t… when it is too late.
So, the press needs to call out Trump’s endless repetition of lies when the facts are indisputable and straightforward. That should not be difficult. It is not biased, because they should do the same for any Presidential candidate, and stop being such pathetic wusses. They should stop being afraid of things that might happen (so what if they do?), and stop trying to avoid conflict at all costs, a mark of the emotionally abused. Both Trump and Clinton should be questioned in a way that reveals their depth of knowledge, and probes their policies in a way that gives the American people a good feel for whether or not they can work. This is not being biased either. Finally, if in totality a candidate’s mendacity and lack of knowledge rises to a level of disqualification, if it reaches a level far, far beyond the norm, then it is not bias for the press to point this out. It is courage. It will never happen though. It will be left as a test for us — working to GOTV, and especially, we must all vote.