Post-debate dysphoria: 8 comments following a night of debate

1.

The ancient Greek doctor Galen is credited with the saying: “Every animal is sad after coitus except the human female and the rooster.” How fitting.

2.

Of course you know who won the debate and who lost it. We all know. One candidate was poised, well prepared, factual, steady – the other one was unfocused, often ridiculous, jumpy, pompous. One candidate said: “Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that's a good thing.” The other candidate said he has the best temperament, a winning temperament.

So naturally, you know who won the debate and who lost it – except you don’t.

That is to say: we learned nothing new about the candidates last night, nothing new about their policies, nothing new about their “temperament,” nothing new about their differences of style, opinion, seriousness, abilities, experience. That Clinton was much better in the debate was hardly a surprise – that’s the way it was supposed to be. Trump is no match for her in debates. He is no match for her in talking about policies. He is no match for her in mastering facts.

He’s been no match for her in all of these things for many months now, and still, he entered the debate last night with the polls showing him having a reasonable chance of winning the election. Thus, the question is not about who’s winning the debate. The question is: does winning the debate matter?

3.

Hillary Clinton wanted only one thing last night: to portray Donald Trump as a lunatic, a man who lives “in his own world.” She used all the available tools to achieve her goal: nodding, laughing, dismissing, faking anger, faking amusement, rolling eyes. She treated him as if he were a naughty child that is suddenly trying to take over a family business, or tell his parents what they ought to do. She treated him like she is way out of his league.

Does all of this help her? Trump certainly played into her hands, but as he goes back on the campaign trail today, here is what he is going to say: she thinks she is entitled, she thinks the presidency is a family business, she thinks we are children who do not know what they want and need mama Hillary to tell us how to behave and what to think.

In other words: while Trump clearly played into the narrative Clinton is trying to sell (he is nuts, he is not fit), it’s possible that she also played into the narrative Trump is trying to sell (she is a condescending liar).

4.

Did we learn something about the Middle East and America’s role in it? Not really. Trump keeps trying to convince the voters that he was against the war in Iraq (call Sean Hannity and ask him). He keeps telling them that spending money on rebuilding a failed Middle East is a waste of money the US should have been using to build at home – in fact, the exact same argument put forward by Barack Obama back in 2008.

He has nothing to say to the people of Syria – nor does Hillary Clinton. It is important to note that the first Presidential debate of 2016 barely touched the greatest humanitarian crisis in many years. In the annals of history – when UN Ambassador Samantha Power writes her sequel to A Problem from Hell – this debate should be prosecution item number one. Two presidential candidates seem completely uninterested in addressing the tragedy of Syria.

5.

It is somewhat refreshing to have Israel unmentioned – in this case, barely mentioned – in a presidential debate. The other day, the two candidates had meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The meetings went well, but only in one of them a specific promise was made: Trump vowed to move the US embassy to Jerusalem – another candidate in a long line of Republicans to make this promise.

Clinton, on the other hand, promised nothing. Her words about a possible UN initiative concerning Israel and the Palestinians were cautious, and essentially toed the line of the latest congressional letter on the matter: she would not support a “one sided” decision on Israel-Palestine. If you can figure out what “one sided” means – and I assume it means many different things to many different people – then you know what Clinton was promising Netanyahu.

Why did she not promise much? If you want to compliment her, you’d say it is because she is serious and does not want to box herself into a position that will later come back to haunt her. If you have more experience watching Clinton, you know that making an empty promise is not something she wouldn’t do when she deems it politically necessary. That is to say: she did not promise much, because there’s nothing for her to gain by making promises to Netanyahu. Not with the recent polls that show overwhelming Jewish support for her over Trump.

6.

Why do I say “overwhelming?” Clinton got only 61% support in the AJC poll of Jewish Americans.

I say overwhelming because in elections the question is not just how many voters support a candidate – the question is how many voters support a candidate compared to the other candidate. Clinton is not as popular with Jewish voters as 2008 Barack Obama or 2000 Al Gore (and Joe Lieberman). But she is popular enough, to paraphrase Obama’s stab at her in one of their seminal debates. She has much more support than the 19% Donald Trump has among Jews. According to the new installment from the American Jewish Population Project, only 14% of Jewish Americans are currently “Republican.”

7.

How comfortable is Trump in using the Iran deal against Clinton? He feels comfortable to attack it as proof that Clinton is not as tough a negotiator as he would have been – as long as it doesn’t drag him along the path of 2008 John McCain (“bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”). Trump believes that the deal is not very popular and is becoming less so with every new sign of Iran gaining power: “you started the Iran deal, that's another beauty where you have a country that was ready to fall, I mean, they were doing so badly. They were choking on the sanctions. And now they're going to be actually probably a major power at some point pretty soon, the way they're going.”

How comfortable is Clinton in defending the Iran deal? I’d say not very comfortable. Note her way of telling the story – a story in which she plays the tough cop, and her “successor” closes the ultimate deal. She gets credit for squeezing Iran and forcing its leaders to the negotiating table, poor Kerry and Obama get the credit for the deal. “I spent a year-and-a-half putting together a coalition that included Russia and China to impose the toughest sanctions on Iran. And we did drive them to the negotiating table. And my successor, John Kerry, and President Obama got a deal that put a lid on Iran's nuclear program without firing a single shot. That's diplomacy. That's coalition-building. That's working with other nations.”

8.

Good entertainment – check.

Nothing of substance – check.

Impact on politics – see you in three-four days.