Thoughts on the first presidential debate.

One speaks to our gut.  The other speaks to our mind.  Both are disliked by almost everyone. And yet, we have to choose one from these two candidates.  Either way, America loses.

- - - - - -

Everything Trump says is a lie - including the words "and" and "the". When Lester Holt (the debate's moderator) tried to fact check Trump on a ridiculous claim, Trump shouted over him. Given Trump's style, he showed that he'd bully anyone, everyone, and anything that got in his way - including the truth. (Hillary tends to be more in touch with reality.) Sadly, Hillary didn't go in for the kill where Trump was weakest - his tax returns.  It has been documented elsewhere that Trump is in bed with many unsavory characters, and she could have brought up the slavery in Dubai associated with one of Trump's partners.  In short, she could have gone a little loose with the facts and played Trump's game by her rules.  

Sadly, Hillary is too much of an intellectual type.  She's the type of nerdy girl who tried to impress people when young by studying everything in the town library. She is a fountain of facts fighting a tiger of lies. If one listened to the debate, as I did, one would have noticed Trump shouting over Hillary at least 20 times.  If Hillary had responded in the same way a man would, she would have seemed shrill and lost any of the gravitas she had.  There is a double standard applied to women, and Hillary does not have the vocal tools which Maggie Thatcher used to beat men at their own game.  (Over Thatcher's career, she gradually lowered her voice to take advantage of a human prejudice to assign gravitas to lower pitched voices.)

- - - - - -

Who won the debate?

If one listened to the debate and carefully parsed the questions and answers - Hillary.  But that's too easy an answer. Trump was not preaching to the public.  He was preaching to a base who already had their decisions made for them, and needed to avoid anything that smacked of defeat by a woman.  And that he did with his visual image. He is a dominant, bullying male. He used all the key tools of an emotional abuser to dominate the moderator and to dominate Hillary. If you were already supporting Trump, you'd have said that he won - especially, since neither Hillary nor the moderator could talk over his shouting.

I'm very afraid here.  Hillary needs better tools to use in her battles with Trump.  I've said it many times - Hillary needs a gag writer.  She needs appropriate insults she can throw at Trump and get the audience laughing at him.  (The audiences are instructed not to applaud or make any other vocal comment during the debate.)  If she can break that wall, Trump will lose, as he can't stand to be humiliated - especially by a woman.

Years ago, Charlie Chaplin said that he'd have never made "The Great Dictator" had he known how bad Hitler was. I am very thankful that Chaplin did make this movie, because he showed that humor was the one tool that can always be used to deflate the ego of a tyrant. Let's hope that the comics of today know that it is their turn to step up to the plate.

Is she fit to serve?

I have never been a fan of Hillary Clinton.  She is and always will be a Machiavel, but this is not a bad characteristic for someone running for the office of president.  Instead, it is a potential risk if she wins the election, because one can't be sure of what will guide her when in office - save for self interest.

Strong leaders tend to be Machiavels to some degree or another. One has to be enough of a psychopath (no moral judgement here) to sacrifice one group of supporters for a "greater good" - and Hillary has proven herself capable of doing that. But she has a habit of snatching defeat out of the claws of victory, by underrating the power of her opposition. When her husband was president, she couldn't get healthcare reform done.  Like her husband, she was a lightning rod for the opposition's political lightning strikes.  And in the 2008 election cycle, she underrated Barack Obama - to her regret.

She is a very intelligent lady, and is very pragmatic.  Yet, she put her foot in her mouth by agitating for a "no fly zone" in Syria.  ISIS has no air force.  So who does this affect? Russia! Can we afford to antagonize the Russians when we have a common enemy?  Why shouldn't we let the Russians look like the bad guys - even if it means that we sacrifice our rebel friends to keep the Syrian government nominally in power?

Much noise has been made by the GOP about her use of private email servers. But government officials from the GOP have done the same thing.  Given the data security breaches in Federal Government computer systems, it is likely that her private server may have been more secure than the government servers she was expected to use. (It is also possible that her private servers may have been "Honey Pots" designed to feed false information to people spying on her.)  Bernie Sanders is likely right - this is a non issue.

There is something not generally reported in the press - she has a soft, human side that people don't often see on the political trail.  She likely hides it because of the double standard imposed on women - if she is soft, she is weak.  And if she is hard, she still can't be as imposing as a male.  In short, she is not allowed to be herself - no matter how qualified she is for office.

So the big question is:  Is Hillary Clinton qualified to be president?  She hasn't done anything important enough to disqualify herself.  But has she developed enough skills to steer this country?  Or, is she the only logical choice left, given the non-logic coming from the opposition?  Only time will tell....