What we got instead was a debate that failed us by refusing to be an instrument for revealing truth.
It worked best as entertainment that amplified Clinton and Trump into caricature.
The split-screen presentation was distracting at first.
Credit: Pool/Getty Images
The near-close-ups magnified all of their tics, mannerisms, and strategies for themselves and each other.
Eventually, it became amusing, yet amusing is not what I wanted from this debate.
Do we give our attention to the one talking?
Did the candidates say anything of substance?
Clinton had clearly prepared for it.
She was in total command of her side of the screen.
She came dressed in red; she came to show us what wearing power should look like.
She knew where the camera was and made sure to find it.
She kept her hand motions within frame, but on the whole, limited her movement, suggesting self-control.
Clinton had prepared for Trumps blowhard, steamroller rhetorical style, and wasnt afraid to provoke it.
She wanted to double-check she showed us that she could not be bullied by him, or anyone.
This backfired on her at times.
By contrast, Trump tried to win the debate by simply being Trump.
He soon resorted to bellicose, language-mangling form.
But the format worked against him.
Hes accustomed to debates where he commands the stage by being at the center, his opponents flanking him.
We didnt get split screen the whole time.
Regardless, I dont think this debate changed anyones minds about how they intend to vote.
(And shame on the audience for not controlling themselves, as asked.)
Trump is all about domination.
Perhaps we cant stop him.
Perhaps we can only contain him.
And perhaps split screens and patient smiles can be enough.
