Watching the first presidential debate for the 2016 election cycle elicited a variety of responses. I saw it projected onto a large screen in the Tulane student union with a large group of other students and faculty, and at certain points, the debate evoked laughter, groans, applause and snaps of approval in addition to snide remarks about both candidates. (Personally, I thought the most amusing responses were from my sociology professor, who was sitting off to the side and had very dramatic, physical reactions to some of the comments made. She almost threw her phone at the screen at one point.) But as amusing as it is to examine people's reactions, the point of the debates is to listen to the candidates go head to head and discuss the issues at hand. It's also a chance to see how each candidate would act in real-life situations as Commander-in-Chief. The debate proved to be very revealing in this sense. The level of decorum shown (or lack thereof) and the rhetoric used by both candidates shows what kind of leader they would be for our country and how they would interact with other leaders with whom they may not disagree.

Trump:

To say that Donald Trump's decorum was lacking is an understatement. He constantly spoke over Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt (the moderator for the debate) and interrupted both of them goodness knows how many times. While he managed to resist saying anything that was blatantly and explicitly sexist as he has in the past, he toed the line several times. When asked about his previous comments regarding Clinton not having a "presidential look," he avoided the question and instead tried to discuss her supposed lack of stamina. He was less successful in avoiding blatantly racist statements, as he implied that most members of inner-city gangs were illegal immigrants.

Trump also continued in his apparent disdain for utilizing good rhetoric and actually answering questions he is asked. He participated in fear-mongering when he said that "the deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems" and that "we've become a Third World country," referring to the quality of our airports. When he said that we are "being ripped off by every single country in the world," he completely ignored the Global South and the abuses that we inflict upon countries whose economies are based entirely on one or two commodities for which we largely control the market. (Please explain to me how Venezuela is "ripp[ing us] off".) When asked about race relations in America, he proceeded to talk about inner-city violence and the need for "law and order," but not about race relations at all; rather, just on how "decimated" African-American communities are by crime. Lester Holt tried many times to bring him back on subject, he diverted the conversation again every time.

Clinton:

Hillary Clinton, while not infallible, showed much more decorum in comparison to Trump. She interrupted and tried to speak over Trump a couple of times, but to a much lesser degree and stayed on topic much more often than Trump did. She did fall victim to the flaw of making some personal attacks, such as discussing the people he had "stiffed" in the building of his business empire and mentioning lawsuits of racial discrimination in the 70s, but these jabs were based in fact as opposed to personal observations like "stamina" or a "presidential look."

If there's one thing that Clinton did well though, it was in presenting a positive persona. There was much criticism of Clinton during the primary debates regarding her serious demeanor and inability to open up or be relatable. During the debate, Clinton smiled, laughed, and responded to Trump's many personal attacks with a quick wit and a sense of humor. This is one thing that certainly exceeded my expectations of her, and it shows a much more personable candidate. One who is able to interact with other people in a calm and professional manner without letting people walk all over them. When Trump claimed that he "[has] a much better temperament than [Clinton] has," I couldn't help but burst out in laughter at the irony given his childish behavior and her cool, reasoned responses.

Overview:

All in all, the debate seemed fairly childish. There was some substance to it, but by and large, the actual information was shrouded and obscured by the unprofessional behavior and avoidance of issues. Trump without a doubt was the more serious offender, but neither candidate was blameless. I can only hope that the next debate is approached with a little less disregard for decorum and a little more respect for each other, as well as the intelligence of the American public.

A full transcript of the debate can be found here.