Judging the debate: a point by point analysis

[Final-Fan]

Norris2k said:

I agree about the question about police bias. I didn't think about it when I saw it. She managed it very well, so at this time it did not appear as the tough question it is, considering her position and voter targets. So I'd agree on 4 to 1 !

Clearly, Trump before Irak didn't have a strong stand against it publicly (varying from mildly for to mildly against), be it for PR reason, or for not having really a stable opinion and then he claims he was strongly against in private, which is impossible to verify. But in this case, "you supported the war in Irak" as an opening sentence is more a troll than a unfalsifiable fact from a moderator. It's like if the question to Clinton started with "You did not show any support for the police in Charlotte.". You have to go against the question itself, which takes time and is harder, especially if you are interrupted. If he want to go with this style, if he want to push the candidate, I'm OK, just it has to be fair.

About Trump being a bigger target, I totally disagree. Benghazzi, the private server (having it, having it hacked, lying about it, and getting immunity for 5 persons of her team), DNC/Bernie scandal, the Clinton foundation, the multiple wars she supported (Irak, Syria, Libya), her 45 millions fortune built as a public servant, the attempt to cover Bill's affairs, etc... it's huge, really, you could talk about it 11 hours straight (and some did). I believe Trump is not even close to that, but strictly about the debate, Clinton is at the very least as big as a target.

I agree Trump didn't have a strong stand publicly.  But he was claiming that he DID have a strong stand publicly.  So the introduction to the question Holt wanted to ask was reasonable in saying "well actually you are on the record as being for the war and there is no evidence you were against it, so..." 

While we're on the subject, Clinton didn't exactly egg Bush on to go to war.  When she voted to authorize force, she said (and I quote an article on the subject that quoted her speech):  “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-10-10/html/CREC-2002-10-10-pt1-PgS10233-7.htm

Lastly, are you seriously suggesting I could not dig up as many outrageous acts by Trump?  He didn't even ask about the wall. 

(P.S.  Fortune built as a public servant?  Two minutes of Google shows an article with apparently good sources (Forbes etc.) showing that the Clintons left the White House with little money; that they've made massive amounts on bestselling books, giving speeches (which she's been criticized for but which can hardly be called corrupt), etc.; and I would personally speculate that Bill, having made more money, pays more of her living expenses, so she will have accumulated wealth more easily than if she was living alone.  And bringing up financial past deeds is hardly safe ground for Trump, what with his business bankruptcies, scams he's being sued over, etc.)