First Presidential Debate Performance of Hillary Clinton Against Donald Trump

Keywords or Terms: Hofstra University; Key Competitive States; Debate Performance; Misogynist; Xenophobia; Ms. Universe; Free College Debt; TPP Pact; Citizen United; NBC-TV Lester Holt; Enigma; Twitter dom; Alicia Machado,  Islamic State Militant; Consequential versus Inconsequential; US Presidency; 2016 White House; Donald Trump; Hillary Clinton; American Voters

An assessment of the debate performance between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at Hofstra University Auditorium has been telling. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been surging in Key Competitive States, with her debate performance solidifying her chances of occupying the White House come next year. Most political polls since the Monday Night debate have attempted to shed more light on the veracity of performance of either candidate for the 2016 White House. A late Friday, September 30th poll released by Suffolk University, put the Democratic Flag bearer ahead of her opponent at 44% of likely voters, against 38% for Donald Trump.

With recent polling, tweeting, and developments in the campaign for 2016 White House, it appears that, one presidential candidate began his journey for the White House oval office, with little iota of truth in his declarations, tweeting and candor, with meager effort at addressing distinct policy shifts on close to twenty national policy issues, including abrasive and somewhat conflicting views on immigration, abortion and national security; but a gusto to prove to those who may be fooled by his arrogance, that he is a better candidate to step into the shoes of the outgoing first African American President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama. His campaign statements, words and nuances, including unfounded claims on many national issues are now considered in many quarters as probably wishful thinking. His somewhat awkward, if not outright derogation statements and declarations about his opponent have been outside the realm of reality and civil presidential campaigning for the White House oval office in recent memory. His comments about the Democratic flag bearer, Hillary Clinton, has been described in some quarters as misogynist, sexist and abhorring, to say the least.

Close to Eighty-Four Million television viewers, inquisitive about what either party’s candidate has to offer them as American voters, who were relying heavily on learning something new or different between the two major party candidates at the first 2016 Presidential Debate at Hofstra University, were treated to a clash of two worlds. A world of a candidate who believes he can be nastier than his opponent, who chooses not to take advantage of relevant policy differences in what his opponent was offering but rather engaged in light weight, if not confused misapplication of policy and declarations, to an extent of allowing the opponent’s allegation of intemperance to get under his skin, where he double down on his disdain for women, and particularly, on a former Ms. Universe. An uncongenial political candidate, who believes going after the past indiscretions or infidelities of his opponent’s spouse will yield him more votes at the polls; different from a candidate, who, articulated her argument for running for the White House, who reminded the competition that she is not only prepared for the presidential debate of September 24, 2016, but also, is determined to occupy and exercise the power of the presidency to better the welfare of many, including mothers, children and American workers. A female Democratic Party flag-bearer, who articulated a well-grounded knowledge of foreign and international relations; and, offered American voters the following proposals: 1) a potential for free college debt policy that may help grow the middle class, and hopefully temper or reverse the trend of burgeoning college attendance debts; 2) potential of refocusing or re-arranging the terms of the Trans-Pacific Trade Pact, to address the minor challenges of the trade pact as signed; 3) the potential of reverting the controversial supreme court decision on Citizens United versus Federal Electoral Commission, which afforded an unbridled fund raising in US elections; 4) the veracity and potential of new jobs being created in manufacturing, infrastructure building by innovative new start-ups or small businesses; and 5) advancement for mending fences on racism, reversing incremental police shooting, community violence, corrective taxation policies, among others.

Reflectively talking about what he would have done differently at the first 2016 major political party presidential candidates’ debate a few days later, the Republican Party flag bearer, insisted he got out everything he had to say at the debate, laying claim he had a good time at the debate; yet corollary denying general perception of campaign observers that he did very poorly at the debate. Mr. Trump, the Republican flag bearer, has become more of an enigma on the campaign trail since the Monday night debate that shown more light on what type of leader he probably is and may end up being if voted into the office of US Presidency. If Mr. trump wanted American voters to consider his run for the 2016 White House seriously, maybe he should have prepped for the debate; maybe he should have avoided going rouge on women and issues that make him justify the perception that he cares very little for women and their concerns.

Notwithstanding the Republican flag bearer's position, accolades or differences, on his performance at the debate, many American voters have probably made up their minds regarding who they are going to vote for; and, what the audience saw on Monday September 24th, 2016, will have somehow, opened up new considerations for each voter: whether to continue supporting an uncongenial braggadocios political candidate, with a knack for dramatic tweeting and offensive comments about minorities, women and other groups, who will rather spend his time focusing on trivialities rather than, national issues that impact the bread and butter concerns of the voters, and or, defer to a long tested and well-seasoned political operative, with clout and dependable resilience in addressing policy and national issues; graciously accepting he is not up to snuff when it comes to political experience and running for the White House oval office. Uncharacteristic exemplification of the veracity of Hillary Clinton’s political experience and dossier was outed at Hofstra University Auditorium, when her Republican rival made what may be considered outrageous claim about the stamina of the first female major American Political Party flag bearer: "Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire … or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina” Hillary Clinton nailed it on the head and made Mr. Trump look more like a politician caught in the fire hole, when she offered this response to the issue of her stamina!

Conclusively, the first major 2016 presidential candidates’ debate couldn’t have been more revealing of the strengths or weaknesses of either of the candidates in the 2016 race; as the candidate who needed to convince uncommitted America voters that he is the real deal failed woefully; and one, that has uncharacteristically been considered as not just trustworthy enough, shown ever so brightly to the thrillingly of her supporters, with a renewed conviction of victory for the not-so-perfect Hallmark! The Republican Party flag bearer, known for his lone wolf approach characteristic of debating style during the Republican party primaries, trolled and interjected his opponent’s response more than fifty times, ignoring the usual decorum of how presidential debates are conducted. With askance and unconscionable style, ignored, disrespected and showed no courtesy to his opponent or Lester Holt, the NBC-TV debate moderator, as he insistently offered less than cordial utterances in his multiple interjections. Invariably, what the audience was exposed to in the first 2016 major political parties' presidential candidates' debate, was nothing short of playground antic that the Republican party flag bearer has been known for in his intra-party Republican party debates of the past eighteen months. Much as candidate Clinton attempted to get out our prepared policies and arrangement for the Office of US Presidency, so were interjections from Donald Trump with: 1) “She doesn’t have the look;” 2) “She doesn’t have the stamina.”

Could Critics of the Republican flag bearer be right concerning his thin-skin to criticism? For critics of the Republican party flag bearer, not only has Mr. Trump been spreading racists birther lie over the past eight years in an attempt to de-legitimize the presidency of the first African American US President, the Republican flag bearer continues to propagate false claims that are not only outrageous, but absolutely delirious considering what are probably known about the essence of Trump’s campaign for the White House oval office in 2016. For Hillary Clinton, who closely kept to the script in her debate deliberations and maintained a poise of authority as she renders her position on policy issues, sometimes attempting to provoke her opponent to the extent that viewers saw a Republican opponent with a rather explosive debate performance and what some debate observers term, inability to stay on message and remain above board as one manages the inconsequential and consequential of leadership obligations.

Even in instances of relative debate congeniality, Clinton was still able to assert the argument that her opponent, Mr. Trump, wants to continue to pitch Americans against each other. Much as Clinton admonished all Americans to work together to build a better future, Trump continues to offer comments that appear to put him in another realm and reality, only known to himself and probably, throng of Republican supporters who have vowed to elect him President. Rather than hit Ms. Clinton on issues that bemoan her campaign for 2016 White House, honesty and truthfulness, Mr. Trump remains despaired and desperate, switching, twitching and sometimes, blown off course, appearing to be losing his temperament, with an assailed comeback: “"You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacture is down 30, 40, sometimes 50%. NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country." Paraphrasing one MSNBC commentator, post-debate reaction, the American voter is left with the choice between a candidate who has acquiesce himself with behavior characteristic of a school yard bully; and a candidate with expansive legal debate experience, and or long public service, who may not be necessarily perfect, but appearing stronger by the day and polls, instinctively built ready and prepared to take the mantle of office of the US Presidency.

If Clinton doesn’t open up her polls’ lead with her debate performance showing the world that her past public service experiences matter, not only to the presidency, not only to those who may doubt her trustworthiness, but also to many voters who have been sitting on the fence; and, who finally found in one scoop of a night on September 26, 2016, that Hillary Clinton is a more prepared and superior candidate to occupy the office of the US Presidency than Donald Trump. Judging by Hillary Clinton’s performance at the first 2016 Presidential Debate of the two major parties in America, the  collapse of Trump's acquaintances of old freewheeling campaign style, peppered with outrageous allegations, xenophobic and unapologetic sexism that may succinctly crystallized has having no place in our kind of democracy. Trump’s throng of supporters, probably felt humiliated for his unpreparedness for the debate. If the winner of the debate were to be determines about how much hot air was puffing out of their mouth, maybe the substance of insult would have heralded Mr. Trump’s chances to the White House in the coming general election. However, for now, it appears this might not be.

The apprehensiveness of many establishment Republicans regarding the candidacy of Donald Trump for the 2016 White House, is now rather worth a solid second consideration at this time. Trump’s tweeter storm early Friday morning has been upheaval even within Trump’s campaign. There were some Republicans, in States like Ohio, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvanian who had given the Republican flag bearer a benefit of doubt prior to the Monday’s September 24 debate Inexplicably,  Trump woefully failed to go after Hillary Clinton for part of her weaknesses at the debate, nor made effort to rally his supporters with more proactive futurist policy proposal that could have strengthened his chances of winning some of the uncommitted American voters, a little bit. Rather, he punctiliously continued to work on minor issues of faulty microphone and his derogation comments about the Democratic Party flag-bearer. 

Uncharacteristically and miraculously, the weight of the former Ms. Universe has now played into the lofty and highly regarded US Presidential debate. Hillary Clinton, who highlighted the misogynist flair of her opponent, by initially introducing the pageant queen's name unconscionably at the debate, to highlight the thin-skin of her opponent to genuine criticism, could by now assert, "I told you so!" The war of words that has ensued between Donald Trump and Alicia Machado, a Mexican former Ms. Universe, has now taken a life of its own, with Mr. Trump tweeting in the middle of the night and doubling down on what many experienced debaters and presidential campaigns would have easily ignored as rubbish. Mr. Trump's derogation statements about the Mother-Actress-Mexican-US-Citizen are now unfathomable distractions, not only to important issues of concern to many American voters, but also the Republican Party who nominated Donald Trump as their party's 2016 flag bearer. A pageant winner is now the toast of what in more congenial times, would have been ignored. However, thanks to Mr. Trump's relatively thin skin and inability to manage his use of social media, a sideline issue of office water-fountain gossips has now gone mainstream conversation in 2016 presidential campaign for the White House. Many seasoned political observers are amazed that theatrics of America's reality television programming, far remote from reality and political significance of many national and public issue, issues of genuine interest to undecided American voters, is now daily and routinely interjected to the the presidential race. Just as Mr. Trump has vacated decency and ignored civil discussions of relevant national issues and policies, American voters are now being treated to television-like drama in the campaign for the 2016 White House oval office. Hillary Clinton’s baiting of Donald Trump with Alicia Machado to prove Mr. Trump is temperamental and unfit for the White oval office, appears to have been vindicated by this one political debate kabuki. Mr Trump continues to body-shame the beauty queen on the campaign trail after his three a.m. Tweet that continue to bug down his campaign. The architect of the political debate kabuki, Hillary Clinton, continues to grow in confidence and support among the undecided in the battle ground states, that were judged head-to-head in polls prior to the first 2016 White House debate.

As if this nightmare was not enough for the nation, the Republican Party flag bearer appears to be now interested in focusing and discussing the infidelity of Ms. Clinton's spouse, former President Clinton. In short, or surprisingly, the Trump campaign is focusing on making Hillary Clinton responsible for the actions of her husband; a hard sell for most reasonable and articulate American voters. Rather than talking about issues of jobs, national safety, national and international terrorism, immigration, racism, police brutality, the 2016 Presidential Campaign and debate has degenerated to a tail of two cities, a discussion of issues of relative insignificance to the educated as against the fancy or inconsequential of the educationally challenged. Donald Trump discussions since the first 2016 Campaign debate on Monday has been a dumpster fire with many damaging statements and tweets that the Republican flag-bearer has chosen to engage in an after-debate effort to re-direct attention from his lackluster presidential debate performance

The danger of the course of the Republican party flag bearer thirty-eight days to the election day, may have probably collapse the chances of a Republican candidate occupying the White House in 2017. For instance, Trump’s brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns, has compounded his ‘Tweeter Dome’ indiscretions; rather than flesh out his so-called extensive plan to defeat the Islamic State Militant in Syria, he is more interested in averting his light weight to conspiracy propaganda to deny him victory for he White House; rather than  address and cultivate other supporters that may default to his choice of freewheeling campaign peppered by insults, Xenophon, unapologetic nationalism and sexism, Trump has taken his campaign to a new never land, engaging a former inconsequential beauty queen in a trade of words rather than concentrating on outworking and outclassing his opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He is more interested in talking about a beauty pageant sex tapes, rather than important national issues. Really? Is this what the run for the US White House has degenerated into?
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SECOND 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: A New Development in possible Use of Presidential Power?

Events and Narratives in American Presidential Campaigns: Are Americans listening to either of the Presidential candidate for 2016 White House?

President Barack Obama: Farewell Address as he rode to sunset!