I remember when she was faced with a similar question during her 2000 debate with Senate contender Rick Lazio and she praised him for being attractive and he returned the favor.
She probably couldn’t have done that with a straight face this time.
The only cite I could find online is this brief Daily Show “Moment of Zen” clip which doesn’t show the question, but it captures the moment.
Having had a few hours to mull over what we all saw last night, I think this is prolly the best summation of the 2nd debate I’ve seen. I agree with your analysis, MeanJoe.
Trump was generally agreed to have not answered the questions/stayed on topic well.
Clinton was generally agreed to have sounded “smart,” “professional,” etc. However, some kids pointed out that Trump’s answers were much easier to remember because he used short words and simple syntax. I had to admit that I had trouble remembering the details, or even the basics, of parts of Clinton’s answers (on, e.g., Syria, taxes, and the ACA).
Trump’s “rudeness” in interruptions, body language, and turning his answers into attacks was seen very negatively. Was expecting a counterpoint reaction that Clinton looked “weak,” but didn’t get it at all. (That last bit’s pretty surprising to me, as many of these kids often express machismo-packed views on gender roles, and on women in leadership in particular! But they used words like “desperate” and “distraction” to describe Trump’s aggressiveness, suggesting that maybe he didn’t do a good job at playing alpha dog.)
Asked the kids to judge the debaters on communication skills. Overwhelming consensus was that Clinton won because she used logic and evidence, spoke in an organized way, and kept her composure. However, many kids thought it was pretty close because Trump was also effective in emotional appeals and one-liners.
Just throwing this out there because these kids are comparatively uninformed about politics - I, personally, always find it interesting to hear what they think about this kind of stuff, and maybe you will too. (And I almost always hear one or two come up with something surprising and insightful.)
I just started getting a bunch of panicky sounding emails from various Democratic and left leaning organizations asking for money for the congressional races. They say that the RNC has pulled all of it’s support from Trump and is going to put $40,500,000 into the congressional races.
No, I said there was more credible evidence. And of much worse behavior. No one has accused Cosby of overpowering and raping them while biting their lip hard enough to cause injury, then callously telling them to put some ice on it. Or chasing a recent widow around the room after coming to him for a job. Or of getting the state police to bring him women, or of nonchalantly dropping his pants in front of one of them. (Nor, I should add, has Cosby or his team referred to his accusers’ statements as bimbo eruptions and set about to assassinate their character, ala James Carville’s comment “If you drag a hundred- dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”)
The evidence against Bill Clinton for this kind of behavior and more is both more credible and of a far worse nature than the complaints against Cosby. And of course a great many of us believe Hillary Clinton was complicit in Bill’s attempts to destroy these women in the public eye, as well as that in a Hillary Clinton administration, Bill will function in effect as co-president, as Hillary did when he was president.
So in light of all this, I’m going to claim that my point stands that the evidence against Bill Clinton is both more credible and of a more serious nature than those against Cosby, and that as always, crickets chirp from the SJW crowd because he’s a high-level Democrat politico.
During the next debate, I’d love to hear Clinton reference this when Trump starts going off on Obama. “You realize, Donald,” she could say, “the only reason either of us stands a chance of becoming president in January is that Barack can’t run again. Kind of makes you humble, doesn’t it?”
Trump would launch into a screed about how great he is, and she could roll her eyes.
I know it won’t happen, but it’s a pretty scene in my head.
That’s because he drugged them. No need to overpower them when they’ve been drugged. All 60 of them. 60 is a lot. In fact, I suspect, but can’t prove, that 60>3.
Thank you both for your kind words and interest in the students’ opinions! I’m glad I’m not alone in finding them interesting. Like many people, most of my friends/family are pretty politically engaged and have predictable political biases - hearing from the kids is a great chance for me to get some really different points of view.
ThelmaLou, I’ll definitely convey your compliments on their thinking, but in a non-partisan way, if that’s okay. Part of my goal in this lesson was to get them to set aside their biases/preferences and think objectively about how and why the candidates communicate the ways they do.
I’m doing the same lesson tomorrow, showing more segments of the debate, so I hope to have fresh insights to share.
A few things for context:
The kids did not hear about the Trump tapes that came out Friday - they don’t get to watch the news much of the time - and I’m not planning on talking about this issue or showing the parts of the debate that touch on it. It’s likely to derail discussion in a serious way, and I don’t think the language involved is classroom-appropriate. (I had to give that teacher who asked the first question Sunday a fist-bump, despite the scold-y phrasing.)
Several of the kids already had a strong impression that Clinton is unusually dishonest - one actually used the phrase “pathological liar” - based on what they’ve heard about the primary and general election campaigns. Praise of Clinton’s intelligence/professionalism was definitely tempered by doubts about her sincerity.
Almost all already thought Trump is “racist” based on his rhetoric about immigration from Mexico. My students are well upwards of 90% Latino. Of those who share personal info during discussion, most were born in the US to Mexican immigrant parents of various legal statuses: fully documented, fully undocumented, and in-between. (I do not solicit this info, but some kids do share it in discussion.) So those who saw upsides in Trump’s style had a big overcoming-bias moment, as I see it.
I wonder if she missed an opportunity to pretty much open things by setting terms.
So, first, Trump denied ever doing what he got taped describing himself doing, right? And then they asked her to reply? Figure she could’ve said, you know, all I can say is that it’s possible. I guess that, if he’s the kind of man who’d do that instead of just lying about it, he’d be the kind who doesn’t respect women, and doesn’t know how to behave appropriately: the kind who’d interrupt a woman when she’s speaking.
So one point that I haven’t seen raised was when Trump talked nukes:
Now I know there is a push for a massive upgrade in America’s nuclear arsenal but is it fair to say the U.S. is old and busted and Russia shiny and state of the art? (putting aside the imho rather reckless nature of the comment)
Part of my goal in this lesson was to get them to set aside their biases/preferences and think objectively about how and why the candidates communicate the ways they do.