The Commander-in-Chief Forum was somewhat ill-named as it was little more than a prettily packaged press event with pre-fielded questions and a highly controlled environment. The existence of the CiC Forum actually seems to be a bit of an oddity, because I can't really see a good reason to have it. Perhaps the NBC Network is seeing it as a whetting of the appetite, a preparation of sorts for the debates later this month. I'm thinking it's more that Hillary's campaign and even Trump's campaign are testing the waters though. Hillary's people want to see how she can hold up under the lights, the people and the pressure.
To her credit, Hillary actually performed better than she has in quite a while. No coughing, no hacking, no horrible balls of yellow phlegm. She seemed more focused and even stood occasionally during her talking, as if to make a specific point about her health. I still had several issues with her half of the forum however. I didn't really find her speech very persuasive. I'm sure Scott Adams will have much to say on this matter, but for me personally, she came off as a bit confusing. She tells us to pay attention to her record right before saying that she wouldn't do what she did in the past. What part of the record are we to pay attention to then? She says she wouldn't do the private email server again. She says she wouldn't do the Iraqi War again. But then she cites her handling of information and her ability to handle international conflicts as good points. It's conflicting.
And despite Matt Lauer telling both candidates to try to stick to their own selling points other than attacking the other candidate, Hillary couldn't seem to help but tie in how Trump would do things bad compared to her. Good for a debate but not a forum. Her actual talking was also very long-winded and at times she seemed to almost pad or drag out her answers to the pre-fielded questions. Perhaps intentional, perhaps not. To me she really seemed to be struggling to sell herself. A very telling point was when she snapped at Matt Lauer who was trying to push on to the next question. A quick burst of anger reared its head as she demanded she be let a chance to finish her thought. Not very reassuring.
She made another very odd remark later that, for me, was the opposite of reassuring. When Matt Lauer asked the pointed question of whether or not she could promise the American people that they would be safe from terrorism on our soil, she replied that was not a promise that she could make. In one sense it's true; she probably would be unable to guarantee the safety of every American just by sheer probability factors. But no American wants to hear that. We want reassurance of some safety. It felt very odd that she phrased her response that way. Perhaps she was getting tired towards the end.
Now I'm going to be a bit biased here, but I feel that Trump handled his half of the forum much better. He opened it well with a good quip to keep Lauer off-guard and remained mostly in control of the conversation flow afterwards. That's a good thing to see in a presidential candidate. He was also very polite to everyone, thanking them for their questions and repeatedly stating his respect for various people in the military. He managed to breeze through most of the questions, giving sharp and succinct answers. I noticed that Trump actually managed to answer more questions than Hillary and wrapped up sooner than she did.
I feel there may have been a few missteps though. I question Trump's proposal that we should have kept soldiers in Iraq to safeguard the oil reserves from power vacuums. In theory it's probably good, but I foresee a lot of Mainstream Media tearing apart his remark that, "To the victors go the spoils, right?" That sounds power-hungry and manipulative, dangerous even. We don't want to see dangerous right now, just safe and secure. But maybe I'm wrong, we'll see.
One other good thing I saw that Trump had over Hillary - his family was there in the audience to support him. That's a very good thing to see, it shows unity and togetherness, things usually seen as very American. I don't believe Bill or Chelsea were there for Hillary, though I may have missed them.
In terms of NBC's handling of the whole event, it was passable. Both Hillary and Trump were asked fairly direct and challenging questions, though there was a definite tailoring of the questions for each candidate. Lauer continually tried to catch Trump saying he would be besties with Putin, perhaps in preparation for an election con, but Trump managed to sweep most of it aside easily. There were also a few odd moments like where a question was fielded from a military woman and the audience erupted into clapping. I'm not sure why they clapped only for her when many others also asked good questions. It seems Sue Fulton is more important somehow.
Whoever may have been more important, the winner here is the American people. We all got an excellent chance to compare Hillary and Trump's speaking styles and some of their foreign policies and military plans. It will definitely be interesting to watch over the next couple days to see how the Mainstream Media tells us to treat this event.
No comments:
Post a Comment