On The First Presidential Debate

My opinion of the 1st Presidential Debate leading up to the presidential election of 2016 is that it was a waste of time and a disservice to the American people. I was hopeful - not truly expecting, mind you, but hopeful - that the debate would focus on issues that are meaningful to America's future. Instead, the questions, by and large, seemed geared to elicit a "cat fight" between the candidates.

That being said, a short summary of my impression of the debate is:

Clinton won on "optics" and Trump won on "substance". The moderator of the debate, Lester Holt of NBC, won on "bias" for Clinton. The only loser was we, the American people.

As a quick aside before proceeding, if you wish, you can watch the entire debate by clicking HERE.

The entire evening came across as a means of providing a reinforcement of the candidates "sound bites" - especially from the Democratic candidate.

Clinton was seemingly well trained on "tactics". When pressed on a difficult question or a comment from Trump, she remained composed and, then, just dodged the issue with a non sequitur answer. Very smart tactic - not too informative, but smart. However, she did seem a tad robotic at times.

Trump remained very defensive when attacked by Clinton and/or Holt. Rather than giving a short response and moving on, he strengthened his defense. Trump was correct in what he said, but the "optics" weren't that appealing.

The moderator, Holt, was most egregious throughout the evening. For examples:

He asked Trump about the "birther" issue, constructing his question to imply racism on Trump's part. Whether Obama was born a US citizen or not is hardly an issue that applies to leading our Nation for the future.

He failed to ask Clinton about her email scandal, the Benghazi incident, the Clinton Foundation scandal, her high "not trustworthy" perception by Americans, and not even about FBI Director Comey's decision to not recommend charges against Clinton based only on his "belief" that no prosecutor would take the case. Comey's decision was NOT based on the fact that no criminal activity occurred; in fact, the opposite is fact.

Clinton continually attacked Trump with statements that were either innuendo or totally out of context or just plain not true.

An example is: She stated that Trump was originally for the Iraq war when Trump maintained he never was. Her assertion was derived from an off-hand comment Trump made on a radio show where he uttered (re: the Iraq war) something akin to "Well, maybe, I don't know." Hardly a ringing endorsement!

Another example was her assertion that Trump's position on "Stop and Frisk" was ruled unconstitutional. That procedure was never ruled unconstitutional. Further, she added that one of the reasons it was found unconstitutional was that it was ineffective. Unconstitutional because it was ineffective? One of the less intelligent statements ever!

And, how are these types of attacks pertinent to the issues facing our Nation today? They are NOT!

An issue was raised by Hillary Clinton that I found very interesting. She strongly advocated for widespread Profit Sharing for employees. Sounds good on the surface. But, it can be a "two edged sword".

I have but one last thing to offer on the "substance" of the debate. Whe asked about defeating ISIS, Hillary's answer was to have people visit her web site for the answer. (Not really a bad answer as such a plan can't be described in a sound bite.) However, the plan on her web site is a continuation of what Obama has been doing. Now, I am going to give you a definition of a word - what is the word?

"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

The word is INSANITY.

This debate was totally meaningless and unworthy of additional comment.

We, the American people, deserve better.