Life is full of missed opportunities. For Hillary Clinton, the second Presidential debate was a big one. During the forty-eight hours prior to the debate, Donald Trump’s already damaged campaign was hemorrhaging badly. The disclosure of a video tape showing Trump describing women in the most demeaning manner and virtually confessing to sexual assault appeared to be the last straw in a constant stream of vile comments. Major newspapers and commentators were calling for Trump to step down from the ticket. Respected Republican leaders like Senator John McCain were withdrawing their already tepid support. Trump entered the debate on the ropes and the world anticipated the knock-out punch.
Instead, Secretary Clinton let him off the ropes. It seems that she followed the advice of some who urged her to just coast, laugh Trump off, act “Presidential.” Big mistake. Instead of driving the sex tape through Trump’s heart, she covered up, just hoping to go the distance. Her response: “well, like everyone else, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking over the last 48 hours about what we heard and saw. You know, with prior Republican nominees for president, I disagreed with them on politics, policies, principles, but I never questioned their fitness to serve.” Wrong answer. It lacked passion. It lacked urgency. It lacked the sense of personal outrage that the historic occasion called for.
Secretary Clinton’s response reminded me of Governor Dukakis’ now infamous answer to CNN Bernard Shaw’s deeply personal question in the 1988 Presidential debate between Dukakis and George H.W. Bush (almost 18 years ago to the day, October 13, 1988). Challenging Dukakis’ absolute stand against the death penalty, Shaw queried Dukakis: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Instead of reacting with horror or even a modicum of personal pain, Governor Dukakis coldly and methodically replied: “No, I would not, Bernard. I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life." Most political analysts think that answer alone doomed Dukakis campaign.
In a similar vein, Secretary Clinton’s lackluster comments on Trump’s devastating sex tape (“I want to send a message — we all should — to every boy and girl and, indeed, to the entire world that America already is great, but we are great because we are good, and we will respect one another, and we will work with one another, and we will celebrate our diversity”) lacked the outrage Trump’s outrageous remarks required. A proper response, a carefully calculated counter-punch and the referee would have called the fight. Instead, Trump played rope-a-dope until the moderators moved on to another topic and the opportunity was lost.
I expect many would say that Secretary Clinton could not have responded aggressively because, as a woman, she would have been accused of being shrill and combative. Some might urge that Clinton need not get down in the gutter with Trump or lower herself to his level. I am not suggesting that at all. I am merely arguing that she should have stood up to Trump's bullying and drawn a sharp line in the sand between what is acceptable in a presidential candidate and what is not. She need not have engaged in gutter politics or a shrill retort in order to do so. She could have done it smartly, methodically, and with just the proper degree of outrage to show her humanity.
After all, Secretary Clinton was appropriately assertive in the first debate and won that bout going away. As an example of how Clinton could have responded without getting in the gutter with Trump - - when Trump twice tried to excuse his remarks as mere “locker room” banter - - a sharp surgical cut along these lines would have sufficed:
“Locker room banter? What does that even mean? We are not running for class President. We are running for President of the United States. First, you insult all women in vulgar language and then you insult all men by suggesting that that’s just the way men talk. As a woman and an American, I say this language and this behavior is not acceptable in a candidate for President of the United States. But I’m not going to dwell on this here. The tape revealed who you really are and I am confident the American people can judge whether they want that person to be the leader of the free world. I’d like to turn now to the serious policy differences that separate us...”
I expect that Secretary Clinton will make the necessary adjustments before the third and final debate and those of you who think she was cool and level-headed in the second debate will applaud her for standing up for herself at that time.
I also believe that the advice Clinton received before the second debate to just smile demurely and laugh in the face of an abusive brawler was essentially sexist. No one would have advised a man to respond to Trump’s deeply offensive remarks in that way. No one would have advised a man to laugh off an abusive bully. No one would have advised a man to allow Trump to stalk him like a predator standing feet away, towering over him like a deranged clown. Again, there was no need for a shrill or overly-aggressive response. A simple, clever “given your latest remarks, Donald, I’d appreciate it if you would stand where I can see you” would have clinched the fight.
I don’t believe this lost opportunity will ultimately affect the outcome of this election as Governor Dukakis’ fatal blunder did in the final 1988 Presidential debate. After all, although Secretary Clinton is clearly flawed, she is not unhinged, and the American people know the difference. But we all could have been spared another month of cable TV punditry if only Mrs. Clinton had delivered the easy knock-out punch in this debate. It is likely she will adjust and do so in the final debate and, on November 8, 2016, election day, Trump will be counted out for the last time.
* * *
Steve Frank was a huge fan of Mohammad Ali and is a Washington, D.C. lawyer and writer.