Are You Not Entertained?
After the debate and the usual victory lap, Trump vowed to hit Clinton even harder. While that may involve some schadenfreude for those of us who aren't Clinton fans, it also shows that Trump isn't very interested in talking about the issues themselves or policy, where, to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, the former Secretary of State excels.
For instance, Clinton could've hit Trump with the little-reported fact that he's been charged in a lawsuit for sexually molesting a 13 year-old girl in a New York court but she didn't. Would it have been a personal attack on Trump that Clinton shied from making? Perhaps. But who wants a pedophile as President of the United States? And after the Bernie Sanders political hit job, I think it can be said forbearance in the political arena is not among Clinton's most endearing character traits.
On the other side, despite his boorish interruptions of Clinton and hapless, helpless moderator Lester Holt, Trump could've hit below the belt by harping more than he did about Clinton's vote to go to war with Iraq based on cherry-picked and fabricated intelligence. He could've hit her on the Clinton Foundation's long-established history of pay-to-play with foreign dictators anxious to secure weapons deals (although Trump has got Foundation woes of his own, which Clinton, to show what a class act she is, didn't even mention).
Most forgivably, he could've but didn't hit Clinton with the fact that, as in the 90's, several people, including at least four from this summer, critical of Clinton and the Democratic National Committee are now sleepin' wit' da fishies.
He could have hit her hard on her own corporate and legal past (and present), such as when she was a 27 year-old lawyer trying her first case, a rape case, and emerged victorious... by smearing the 12 year-old victim who was so severely injured by the attack she could never bear children (would it have been too much to expect Trump to rhetorically ask her if she'd defend him in his own impending child rape case? Yyyyeeeeaaaah, probably). Clinton reportedly laughed about it, afterwards, just as she had laughed over the murder and anal-raping-by-knife of Col. Gaddafi.
Alas, we heard little to none of this, as much as we would've loved even more to hear a substantive policy debate, at which Secretary Clinton is a past master.
For whatever good it did her from her hidey hole on Twitter and the sound stage on Democracy Now, Dr. Stein addressed many of the things the two buffoons on the stage couldn't or wouldn't touch: Student loan debt, the so-called War on Drugs, nuclear disarmament, etc.
Point, set and match. Check and checkmate.
Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon squared off in their debate exactly 56 years ago yesterday to the day. There was an article that came out the night before the debate by Emmet John Hughes in which he wrote,
If [television] drives politics toward theatrics, so that the number of politicians who imagine themselves entertainers swells to match the number of entertainers who imagine themselves politicians; if it ruthlessly practises a kind of intellectual payola that rewards the man who can reduce the most complex issue to the silliest simplification...The rest of that sentence was completed in the persons of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Dr. Jill Stein was right when she simply said, "We deserve better."