Plenty has been written about the second US presidential debate. I want to touch on a couple of points that have not been raised:
- The candidates appearance/body language
- 33000 deleted emails – is this a scandal?
- “locker room banter” – explanation for the ladies and what are acceptable limits
- Trump looked terrible. No doubt his suit was expensive, but it hung badly on him. Firstly, the pants were too short. He had one button done up and you could see his tie below the button – this may be a new style, but usually, if the buttons are done up, the lower part of the tie should be covered – alternatively the jacket could be open and that would be OK. His posture made him look 10 years older than he is – slightly hunched and his arms were often hanging limply by his side. His facial expression was a constant scowl. In contrast, Clinton looked more lively. She often smiled and the smile looked natural (no doubt the result of hours of hard work with an acting coach). She looked professional, taking quick notes while Trump was speaking (again, probably due to the acting coach). When dealing with the audiences questions she looked serious and concerned, indicating that she understood the issues they faced.
- Anyone who has an email account knows that the vast majority of emails are of no importance. Everyone cleans out their inbox every now and then to get rid of those which were of no importance or which are no longer relevant (e.g. reminder of an event or subscription). It is important to distinguish between emails which are received and which are sent. No one can control what they receive. Classified items which were sent to Clinton cannot be blamed on her (unless she sent them to herself from a different account). The deleted emails appear to be part of an annual cleanout carried out by one of her staffers. There is nothing sinister about this. Trump’s attempts to make this an issue is probably aimed at his supporters who are not computer literate.
- Most men, when they get together engage in some sort of “locker room banter”. This is often a male-bonding exercise. Using offensive language says “you are my friend and I feel I can let my guard down with you”. Commenting on women’s looks is perfectly acceptable. Bragging about your sexual conquests may also be acceptable (especially when they are in the past). Discussing wives/current girlfriend is strictly taboo. Bragging about forcing yourself onto women and groping them is not acceptable. If he did all the things he bragged about, then he is clearly an utter sleaze ball. If he hadn’t done any of that, what insecurities does he have that he needs to lie??
Trump doesn’t appear to take these debates as a serious opportunity to discuss policy and present plans. But that isn’t as surprising as it might be with a more serous candidate.
I don’t really feel he has an true commitment to policies in any case, except the policy of satisfying his own ego by getting to the centre of the biggest stage he can think of. And he has never talked about his plans that I am aware of, not in any way that gives any confidence that they have real substance to them. The only things that stick in the mind are wishlist items that are either ridiculous (the wall) or flatly unconstitutional, and they still don’t have substance; like he will speak end results into existence.
Clinton’s discipline was never a more valuable character trait. If Trump had managed to bait her into any kind of comparable response to his playacting, the debate could have degenerated into farce, to her great loss – see Marco Rubio for an example.