It Was Debasing Not Debating

The debate last night was well, interesting.  It felt like candidates on The Bachelor suddenly broke out into a debate.  At least one moderator spent more time arguing than simply asking questions and keeping things on track.  A former President was harshly attacked and he's not even running for President.  And the final question of the debate forced the candidates to say something nice about each other.  For the record, Clinton couldn't even do that although she came close enough by complimenting Trump's kids.

The three key points in the debate I'd like to discuss are the hot mic controversy, the Clinton emails, and the moderators in general.  Today I'm going to play arm-chair debater and tell you how I would have handled things had I been Trump, Clinton, or a moderator during the debate.  Of course I have the benefit of hindsight, no pressure, and what I say will only be read by 4 people instead of watched by millions.

TRUMP: HOT MIC CONTROVERSY

I didn't care for the way he answered the question.  Yes, he successfully got through it without further damage, but in my opinion he could have turned it into a opportunity.  He played the damage control card only and then went on the attack of Bill Clinton in an effort to show the hypocrisy of the Clintons.  I've never been a fan of the "Yeah I did it but what they are doing is worse" defense, so his entire tone on that set of questions fell completely flat on me.  Here's how he should have answered the question:

"Regardless of how long ago it was or the circumstances surrounding it, I said some very insulting, stupid, and demeaning things.  There is no way to defend or explain what I said, so I'm not going to even try.  Instead, I'm simply going to say I'm sorry.  I'm sorry Nancy O'Dell.  I'm sorry Arianne Zucker.  I'm sorry Melania.  I'm sorry to my family. And I'm extremely sorry to the American people who have put their faith for a better future in me and whom I severely let down.  I realize some people will not vote for me solely because of these statements, and while I wish that was different, I totally understand the reason why.  It's a great lesson to us all that what we say and do can always have an impact on us later in life and we must own up to those actions.  My hope is the American people look at more than just this issue when they cast their vote.  I hope they accept this apology and realize that even though I'm a flawed man, I still will be their defender of our Constitutional Rights.  I will be the one who is toughest on our enemies and will bring judgment to ISIS.  I will bring jobs back to our Nation and stop the constant flow of work overseas.  I will lower taxes.  I will defend the 2nd Amendment.  I will put a conservative like Justice Scalia back on the Supreme Court.  And I will leave the office with America in a better place than it was when I took it. So I first ask for your forgiveness, and if you can find it in your hearts to do that, then I now ask for your vote."

CLINTON: EMAIL ISSUE

It felt like Clinton did an equally bad job answering the questions about her email as Trump did about his words.  When she talked about doing things differently, it sounded more to me like doing things differently so she wouldn't have gotten caught.  She spent a lot of time minimizing her actions and never really acknowledging how many people view what she did and how she's been treated in the aftermath.  For someone who loves to say she's not part of the elite, on this issue she's been treated like royalty.  Richard Nixon lost his Presidency over a scandal and cover-up for less significant than than the email issue.  I think it would have been important for Clinton to at least help the voting public try to understand why she did it and why deleting 30,000+ emails looks really bad.  I'm not entirely sure what she could say to make things look better, but hoping the people believe she had 33,000 personal emails is a bit far fetched.  The success of her argument lies in the fact our highest law enforcement agency, the FBI, has formally cleared her of any criminal wrong doing.  If I'm Clinton, I respond to every question with reminding everyone the FBI completely cleared her of any criminal wrong doing.  No matter how much Trump may want to talk about her poor judgment, the FBI has essentially said she did no wrong.  Every time she tries to explain herself she either comes across as arrogant or seems to imply we are dumb enough to buy her flimsy excuses.  Additionally, her facial expressions barely hide the fact she knows she got away with something a normal private citizen never would have.

THE MODERATORS: LEARN THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD

The definition of moderator is as follows:  someone who leads a discussion in a group and tells each person when to speak; someone who moderates a meeting or discussion

An alternate definition is: the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.

Both of those definitions seem to either explicitly state or implicitly imply an unbiased approach to the leading of a discussion.  Last night we saw both moderators, but particularly Martha Raddatz, seemed more interested in joining the debate than leading it.  Raddatz continually interrupted Trump, argued with Trump, ask follow-up after follow-up regardless of how he answered, and generally showed complete contempt for him as a person.  Now Trump probably deserves that from the majority of the free world, but Raddatz is there to MODERATE not PARTICIPATE.  She is not there to show her support for either candidate.  She is not there to make sure one candidate looks foolish and she's certainly not there to be part of the story.  She is there for 2 reasons only.

Reason 1:  Ask questions, including a follow-up if the questions is either not answered or the answer is not clear.
Reason 2:  Keep time and make sure a candidate doesn't run long.

That's a pretty simple list of job responsibilities to keep clear.  No matter what she feels, she needs to stay out of the debate and let the candidates spar with each other.  Want proof?  Trump was interrupted 26 times by Raddatz while Clinton was interrupted only 12 times.  That's 38 times she felt the need to insert herself into the conversation instead of just letting them respond on their own.  (Side note: lest we think this was just a problem last night, Lester Holt interrupted Trump 42 times in the previous debate)

Anderson Cooper wasn't much better either.  Over and over I heard him say something to the effect of, "Mr. Trump please don't interrupt her, she didn't interrupt you."  Why not just say, "Mr. Trump, please hold your comments."  Why was it so important for Cooper to continually compare Trump's behavior to Clinton?

Further, the moderators did a horrible job getting the debate off to the right start.  While they clearly needed to talk about Trump's hot mic issue and Clinton's email issue, leading with both set the standard this was going to be a bare knuckle brawl.  Would it have been so wrong to lead with something else?  Or if you lead with Trump's scandal, then get to other real issues right away before you get to Clinton's emails.  We were 30+ minutes into the debate before we got to an actual issue.  Additionally, the first social question from the public was another one about the hot mic issue.  And if that wasn't enough, Raddatz felt the need to augment the question with her own spin.  No other social question or question from the Town Hall attendees was augmented or adjusted by either moderator.

CONCLUSION

The losing participants in the debate were the moderators.  No one lost my trust more than them as the didn't play the very simple role they were asked to play.  Who lost the debate?  Probably all of us watching.  I don't think any of us learned anything new and we subjected the entire world to the circus that is this year's election.  I've watched every debate since I was 16 years old and this is the first time I was physically uncomfortable.  My like the election in general, I just wanted it to end.