The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is in the books.
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza tweeted, took notes and picked some winners and losers.
Clinton wasn't perfect in this debate. At times she came across as overly rehearsed and robotic. I thought her answer on race relations was way too much head and not enough heart. But, Clinton was head and shoulders above Trump. She was, unsurprisingly, very well prepared - using a slew of facts and figures to not only make her positive case but to also slam Trump. She was terrific in bashing Trump on taxes. Her response to Trump's attack on her temperament - the shoulder shimmy! - was effective. Her birtherism response - while low-hanging fruit - was effective. And, on her biggest weakness - her decision to establish a private email server at the State Department, Clinton skated. She delivered a full and unequivocal apology - what a concept! - and the debate moved on without much of a stir.
Split Screen: I'm not sure who made the call at networks to keep Trump and Clinton on screen at all times during the debates, but whoever did it: good job! Debates are aimed at revealing not only policy proposals but also personality and temperament. Split screens help illuminate who these people are when under duress and attack, when they are nervous and when they feel backed into a corner. Trump didn't fare as well as Clinton with the split screen. He sighed, made faces and looked, well, not very presidential.
Lester Holt: My guess is that the Nightly News anchor will be criticised in some circles for a) not fact-checking Trump enough and b) often disappearing during the debate. On point A, it's impossible to fact-check every single thing Trump says in real time without making the debate seven hours long. On point B, I applaud Holt for disappearing at times. Good moderators are the ones you don't remember; they're like referees in that regard. Holt let the two candidates duke it out time and time again. He avoided forcing a format on them or demanding that they move on when they were discussing real disagreements. I applaud that. Want a testament to how well Holt did? I guarantee you no one is talking about him tomorrow. That's a win.
Twitter: I really don't know how I watched debates before Twitter. Sure, it can be distracting at times. And mean. And snarky. Also, I just described why I love it so much.
The "bigly" vs "big league" debate: I am certain Trump says ":big league." Other are convinced he says "bigly." Regardless, he said one of those things a bunch tonight. Also, well done Merriam Webster!
Trump was simply not prepared well enough for this debate. He regularly struggled to deal with questions he had to know were coming. His answer on his five year quest to show that President Obama was not born in this country was like watching a car accident in slow motion. His answer on why he wasn't willing to release his tax returns wasn't much better. His explanation of his position on the Iraq war not only ran counter to the facts but made very little sense. On temperament, perhaps the key to trump's chances of beating Clinton, he resorted to insisting he had one of the best temperaments and that Clinton had come unhinged in a speech over the weekend. (Sidebar: If you have to say you have one of the best temperaments, you probably don't.) Then there was the fact that Trump left so many potent hits on Clinton unused. He never once used the phrase "basket of deplorables." He barely skirted her email problems. He didn't even mention the words "honest" or "trustworthy." And, as the debate wore on, Trump seemed to resort to his worst instincts - interrupting Clinton and shouting "not true" while she spoke with very little back-up for those clams. Not a good night.
Donald Trump's website: Take a note: If you are going to make mention of your website during a presidential debate where the audience is likely to be upwards of 80 million people, make sure it is ready for some traffic. Some users were diverted to a page with "Site error" messages.
The audience: Look, if you are going to have an audience why tell them repeatedly they can say or do nothing during the debate? I am agnostic on whether these general election debates should have an audience at all. But, if you are going to have one, don't tell them to never make a sound. A little bit of cheering and reaction makes the whole thing more watchable, more enjoyable and more real. If we don't let the audience react every once in a while, then we let the "Quiet Car" people win. And we can't let that happen.
400-pound hackers: Trump, pushing back against claims that the Russians were responsible for the hack of the Democratic National Committee, suggested that a 400-pound hacker sitting on a bed might have done it. Hmmm. I mean, maybe?