Clinton and Trump Share the Stage

Photo by Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA2.0

Presidential debates hold an esteemed role in our country's history. They provide a unique showcase that enables the final candidates to go head to head in full public view, letting us see who they are and who they are not. It's a brilliant political creation. 

Hillary Clinton won the first 2016 presidential debate against Donald Trump. It must be said up front because if she had lost the debate, tides might well have turned. She won the debate on substance and style with a deft use of preparation that was a winning factor. She did her job well, and as the first woman on the stage in that position, gender is something that shouldn't be dismissed. 

The big question going into the debate concerned her opponent. Which Donald Trump would show up at the Hofstra University setting? We now know. The real one. The one for whom rules don't apply - at least in his mind - and preparation is something other people do. The so-called presidential appearing Trump was nowhere to be found.

From the moment television cameras went to a split screen picture of each candidate, Trump lost. It was fairly remarkable to watch the body and facial language of a man who made his way into our public lives via his own TV show.

The man we saw standing on the debate stage next to Hillary Clinton squirmed, squinted, pouted and slouched his way through the presidential debate, trying hard not to look as nervous as he apparently felt. It was hard not to think of Richard Nixon sweating under hot studio lights during his first debate with John Kennedy.

Trump is a man used to controlling the show. In order to do that, you advisedly have to prepare thoroughly so there are no surprises. He brought in former and now fired Fox news chief Roger Ailes to help with debate prep. Ailes pedigree includes preparing Nixon for his second debate and Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush for their debates. If you bring in a professional coach, it generally pays to listen. But Trump didn't. The real Donald Trump who came to the Hofstra stage showed us what not preparing for a presidential debate looks like. It was clear he’s a man who still believes he can become leader of the free world without in-depth knowledge of the issues involved. 

And he kept interrupting the woman on stage. Not once, but throughout the 90 minutes they were together. He kept trying to argue not debate, which can happen if you're short on substance. It can also happen if you're a man who thinks he can get away with that kind of behavior standing opposite a woman in a professional setting. The tall big man on stage came off looking much smaller.

When the debate ended, Trump went into the Spin Room to talk to the media. He talked about how great he had done. And then he said something that tells us much about the man himself:

"I'm really happy I was able to hold back on the indiscretions in respect to Bill Clinton. Because I have a lot of respect for Chelsea Clinton."  

Trump added, “Maybe I’ll tell you at the next debate. We’ll see.”

No matter how far he's come, Donald Trump appeared officially out of his league back home again seven miles from Queens, New York.

Style vs. Substance: The Choice

Photo by Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA2.0

This past weekend's bombings in New York City and New Jersey provide an important and unexpected glimpse into the leadership ability and style of both presidential candidates during a time of crisis. Out of its complexity comes a simplicity that creates its own short form preview.

Donald Trump's techniques for verbalizing anything, even in a crisis, are important to look at. Facts be damned. If you focus on the methods he uses for making points, we begin to level a playing field for choice. He's conversational. It's the way he talks that makes things he says digestible no matter how outrageous. He uses simple words. He verbally drops major thoughts or words or statements casually in a matter of fact manner so that they don't seem like the big deal they are. He has the gift of verbal dynamite. Beware. Be alert. Report. 

Shortly after news of the explosions in NYC broke, Trump couldn't contain his need to quickly comment, even before the city's Mayor Bill de Blasio and new Police Commissioner James O'Neil held their news conference. They had the facts. He didn't. Trump told a group of Colorado supporters:

"I must tell you that just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what's going on, but boy we are really in a time - we better get very tough folks. We better get very tough. We'll find out."

The Twitterverse lit up. Trump publicly said, "nobody knows exactly what's going on" planting seeds of fear. He didn't have a clue but that didn't matter. The negative phrase was already put in people's minds. "We better get very tough folks" was equally well-suited to be negatively repeated. And then, as he does with great frequency, he dropped his zinger in a trail off voice that eerily planted his point - "We'll find out" ...

By the time the mayor said it was "too early to determine specifically what the incident was caused by," Trump's mission had been accomplished.

Hillary Clinton sounded a position that anyone in the sane political or business world would call calm and professional in crisis:

"We need to do everything we can to support our first responders - also to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold."

In perspective, her remarks reflect one of Clinton's major challenges against Donald Trump. Hillary's words didn't leave us hanging on to phrases to repeat or that incite passion. As pathetic as it is to say, this election is as much about communication skills as it is about real knowledge and ability. He plays to emotions, she plays to intellect.

On Tuesday as the NYC bombing details continued to unfold, Hillary said:

"This threat is real, but so is our resolve. Americans will not cower, we will prevail. We will defend our country and we will defeat the evil, twisted ideology of the terrorists.”

She went on to say, "Terrorists are using Donald Trump's rhetoric as a recruiting tool." Clinton looked and sounded presidential as she spoke to reporters. But how much of her statement will people remember?

Trump used the same Tuesday morning to do a phone interview with "Fox & Friends" and boast about being the first one to call Saturday night's explosion a bomb: 

“I was criticized for calling it correctly, What I said was exactly correct. I should be a newscaster because I called it before the news.”

Taking a cue from Trump, I'll close by saying we can either get on the sane talk express or be prepared...

Trump's Women Problem Revisited

Photos by Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA2.0

The next president of the United States will be elected in two months, and the first female Democratic nominee continues to be hammered by two things. Emails and her gender. At this point, I believe Senator Bernie Sanders had it right in the first debate with Hillary Clinton way back in 2015 when he said, "Enough about your damn emails." Clinton has since admitted - and admitted again that she made a mistake using a private email server when she was Secretary of State, and said it won't happen again.

NBC News Matt Lauer missed that memo when he used about one third of her time at the Commander-in-Chief Forum asking her about those emails. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) didn't get the memo either. The Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is calling for another Clinton email investigation. Moving right along, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus took to Twitter during the Forum criticizing Hillary for seeming angry and not smiling enough as she answered questions.

Wait a minute. The female candidate didn't smile enough while talking about national security and our veterans as well as her emails? Thank you Reince for getting to the point. This is the presidential campaign that has made misogyny a household term. 

When does a heated election contest between a man and a woman cross the line and become harassment? Perhaps when the male candidate surrounds himself with new advisers who possess an outright disdain for women that has gotten each of them into serious trouble. If Trump wins the election, these men are sure to play key roles.

Trump's new guiding lights, as he fights to win this election, are both men who have histories of reported “issues” with women. First up we have the man just thrown out of his last job for sexual harassment, former Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes. Fifteen days after being successfully sued by Fox anchor Gretchen Carlson, Ailes resigned in disgrace. The stories recounted by a number of women who also worked at Fox are beyond repulsive. 

Roger Ailes has been a very powerful man, both in the media and politics, for a long time. Before Fox News, Ailes strategized victories for Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. But he let the power go to his head. Carlson was awarded a settlement of $20 million and an unprecedented apology from Fox. Ailes got a $40 million exit from Fox, and a place of esteem within the Trump campaign helping the candidate prepare for the debates and more. Donald Trump supported his buddy throughout his legal matter, and went so far as to question the veracity of the women accusing Ailes. 

Next up, the man who recently got the job of Trump campaign CEO, Steve Bannon. While far from a household name, Bannon was the Executive Chairman of Breitbart News, a publication well known to the extreme right political world. This is a man who has been charged with misdemeanor domestic violence against his now ex-wife, and sexual harassment at a previous place of employment. Bloomberg News labeled Steve Bannon the "Most Dangerous Political Operative in America".

With Bannon’s reported strong desire to destroy those on the left and a no holds barred approach to taking opponents down, Trump has brought in another misogynist to work the final stretch of his campaign against Clinton. Weeks before being named Trump's new campaign CEO, Steve Bannon wrote the following on the Breitbart website:

"Women are -- screwing up the internet for men by invading every space we have online and ruining it with attention-seeking and a needy, demanding, touchy-feely form modern feminism that quickly comes into conflict with men's natural tendency to be boisterous, confrontational and delightfully autistic."

What a lineup of handpicked top advisers.