Why is It So Hard For So Many Guys to Admit That Hillary Won The First Presidential Debate?

On Saturday September 24th, I went out on a limb and predicted what I thought would happen during Monday night’s debate. I was so confident that Trump The Shape Shifter would morph into an erudite statesman then that I couldn’t resist. And, my prediction turned out to be correct — for maybe 23 minutes.

Instead of channeling the subtle demeanor of Ronald Reagan, Trump showed his true self.

If you didn’t see that televised debate, you should go online now and find a rebroadcast of it. You simply have to see it in order to believe it. Let me just simplify things by saying this: if Hillary Clinton had acted the way Donald Trump did during this debate, the campaign would have been over that night for her. Period. The American public at large never would have accepted a woman running for President who was that unfocused, that childish, and that cluelessly proud of being that way.

Oh yeah, the Republican nominee really was that bad…but in 90 minutes he went from bad to shockingly worse. Bad enough that Donald Trump didn’t adequately answer the given questions or clarify what he was talking about. Bad enough that he couldn’t concentrate on the issues at hand. Those things alone would have definitely shown that he was a lousy debater. But The Donald went all out and showed the darkest hue of his dark side that you could ever imagine.

He continually interrupted his opponent. He continually talked over Hillary when it was her turn to answer any question posed by moderator Lester Holt. He continually gave rude, sophomoric
facial expressions and bitchy asides to her while she was trying to speak. He went beyond rudeness or poor sportsmanship, though. He showed audience members and TV viewers alike what an incredibly obnoxious, racist, sexist bore he really was.

Of course, that’s just my opinion. I’m not alone, however, in my personal viewpoint. The zeitgeist around water coolers and coffee houses and check-out lines is that Donald Trump lost this first debate while Hillary Clinton won it, hands down. That’s what most people in Middle America are saying, anyway.

But then I forgot some really important things about this Presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton is not only a Democrat, but she’s the first woman ever to run for the Presidency in any major party.

So of course, she can’t be the winner because she’s just a girl!

Professor David Schultz was the one who brought me down to earth really fast about this double standard. He’s teaches Political Science at Hamline University in St. Paul and often gives political commentary for local TV stations. He actually said that it wasn’t so much that Hillary Clinton won the debate but that Donald Trump had lost the debate. Then he dismissed Hillary Clinton’s debating skills by remarking that “she really wasn’t such a good debater.” Really?

Then I started reading the editorial pages of the Minneapolis Star Tribune from Wednesday, September 28th. What I discovered was that even if Hillary wins, the (predominately) male editorial writers will find ways to make her a loser. What’s especially curious about their bias is the way they think they’re hiding it. As if readers are so stupid that they are not going to notice what they’re doing?

Let’s look at few examples to illustrate what I mean. In the editorial that reflects the newspaper’s official position, the headline reads “Steady Clinton bests unprepared Trump.” That sounds a lot like an endorsement of Hillary’s skills and expertise, doesn’t it? But not so fast. Remember, we’re in Minnesota, the land of 10,000 passive-aggressives. “Hillary Clinton, despite her flaws as a candidate, showed that preparation matters, facts matter.” The more you read this editorial, the more you see that it isn’t really praising Hillary for her performance, it’s building a case that Trump was having a bad night. And of course, the editorial board had to even things out.

If Donald Trump performed poorly at the debate, then the editorial board had to find something wrong with his opponent, too. Of course. This op-ed had to close with criticism of both candidates, as in, “There were missed opportunities on both sides, however.”

Then on the next page, the Open Exchange continued this passive-aggressive MO. The headline reads, “THE FIRST DEBATE: Few thought Trump starred in this reality show.”
But look at the subheading: “Commentary across the nation panned the Republican’s ill-tempered, ill-prepared ramblings, while Clinton drew mild, mixed reviews.”

Underneath that subheading, however, is a political cartoon done by Steve Sack that affirms what most people believe happened in this debate. He calls it TYRANNOSAURUS WRECKED. Hillary drawn as a battling stegosaurus is goring Trump T-REX with a tail full of FACTS.

But then, underneath the cartoon, 15 op-eds from other publications appear — and many of them continue with this curious criticism of the obvious winner of the debate.

From Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune (TNS): “…The pre-debate question about Clinton was whether she could come off as credible and inspirational. The answer turned out to be maybe. By and large she avoided lawyer-speak and the sort of parsing of words that earned her a reputation for slipperiness. But her passion was restrained and her rhetoric never soared.”

From Roger Cohen of the New York Times: “Clinton, for her part, came across as a steady hand, at once patient and resolute. Still, for Clinton, a candidate struggling to overcome distrust and enthuse dubious young Americans, this was a polished rather than breakthrough performance.”

So, despite her genius for organization and preparation of the facts, despite her grasp of complex national and international issues, despite her track record of public service and actually holding various political offices, she’s still not good enough.
Her rhetoric never soared and she didn’t deliver a breakthrough performance. What’s really interesting about this unfair criticism is that most of it keeps coming from the guys, not from girls or women.

Now I’m all for the publication and discussion of diverse viewpoints. As Americans, we should always try to look at both sides of the issue, but I cannot help but see how this double standard can unduly influence and prejudice voters.

When Hillary Clinton was cleared of wrongdoing in the e-mail scandal, The Minneapolis Star Tribune made sure that she was not exonerated in their editorial pages. After she was cleared (but also dissed) by the FBI Director, the guys in charge only published opinions about her that were negative, scathing, and career-ending. If she makes any kind of a mistake, the guys in charge never want to forget it or excuse it or rationalize it. On the other hand, when she does great things, the guys ignore it — as though her successes had never happened.

Meanwhile, Trump can say and do the most outrageous and illegal things, but still get a heads-up from the boys-in-the-backroom.

Why does this keep happening?

Because the opinion leaders in our media are 21st Century male chauvinist pigs, that’s why.