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;
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment