Last night’s debate was the Super Bowl of presidential politics, and just like the big NFL game, viewers expected the officiating to be fair, but they were horribly disappointed.
Lester Holt was given the honor of moderating the slugfest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and much like Candy Crowley did to Mitt Romney in 2008, he tried to end Trump’s campaign by basically shilling for Hillary. In fact, many conservatives are crying foul after seeing at least five separate occasions in which Holt showed his bias for the former secretary of state.
Coming into the debate, Hillary’s campaign demanded that Holt “fact-check” Trump in real-time as the pair were on stage. Not only did he interrupt the billionaire to inject his own version of the truth, but he repeatedly pressed Trump on questions that almost seemed like they were written by Hillary’s campaign while failing to ask her about even one controversial issue she’s had to deal with in the past.
It was a sad sight to see as objective journalism was thrown out the window to favor one candidate over another. Moderators aren’t supposed to become the story after the fact, yet here we are talking about Holt’s role in the debate rather than the merits of what the two candidates were debating, and it’s at least in part due to the five issues below.
Here’s a list of five instances where Holt showed his implicit bias toward Clinton, from Breitbart News:
Tax returns. Holt never asked Clinton about her e-mail scandal, about Benghazi, or about the Clinton Foundation and its dubious dealings. But he did ask Trump about his tax returns, arguing — not asking — that there might be questionable information in them that the American public deserved to hear.
Birther conspiracy theory. Holt never asked Clinton about her past record of racist statements, including her “super-predator” remarks as First Lady, or her explicit appeal to “white Americans” in her 2008 primary campaign against Obama. Yet he asked Trump about the Birther conspiracy theory and cast it as racist.
Stop-and-frisk. After an exchange between the candidates over the policy of “stop-and-frisk,” Holt interjected to bolster Clinton’s point by stating, erroneously, that stop-and-frisk had ended in New York because it had been declared unconstitutional by a court. Trump countered, correctly, that the new mayor had canceled the policy before the litigation was over.
“A presidential look.” Towards the end of the debate, Holt asked Trump about what he meant by saying Hillary Clinton did not have “a presidential look.” He did so after noting that Clinton had become “the first woman” to be nominated for president by a major political party, thus setting Trump up as a sexist. As Trump answered, Holt interrupted him, then gave Clinton a chance to respond with her talking points about Trump’s past comments on women.
Iraq War. The question of whether Trump supported the Iraq War or not has been widely debated. What is beyond doubt is that Hillary Clinton voted for it. Holt only represented one side of the debate about Trump, and never asked Clinton about her own vote.
Breitbart also noted that throughout the debate the audience interrupted several times, and while Holt would hush them if they were cheering Trump, he didn’t do anything of the sort as they cheered for Clinton.
Fortunately for Trump, the debate wasn’t so much about whether or not he could outwit Hillary, but if he could be put under intense pressure without snapping, which he did just fine. In fact, the only thing the media has to talk about coming out of the debate are tired talking points like birtherism and taxes rather than what a bigoted bully Trump is because he didn’t give them such ammunition.
By keeping his cool, staying on message, and only attacking Hillary on the issues, Trump won future discussions about the debate. Now all he has to do is sit back and enjoy the hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising he’s about to get from the leftist media, who’s undoubtedly going to tryt o spin this every which way imaginable.