Donald Trump strains to balance diplomacy, military threat to Iran
The Trump administration tried to balance diplomacy with fresh talk of military action Tuesday in response to the fiery missile and drone attack on the heart of Saudi Arabia’s oil industry — a strike marking the most explosive consequence yet of the “maximum pressure” U.S. economic campaign against Iran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was headed to Jiddah in Saudi Arabia to discuss possible responses to what U.S. officials believe was an attack coming from Iranian soil. President Donald Trump said he’d “prefer not” to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at next week’s U.N. session but “I never rule anything out.” Iran continued to deny involvement in last weekend’s attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil processing plant and its Khurais oil field, a strike that interrupted the equivalent of about 5 percent of the world’s daily supply. Saudi Arabia’s energy minister said Tuesday that more than half of the country’s daily crude oil production that was knocked out by the attack had been recovered and production capacity at the targeted plants would be fully restored by the end of the month. The Trump administration was moving cautiously as it navigated competing impulses — seeking to keep up a pressure campaign aimed at forcing Tehran to negotiate on broader issues with the U.S. while deterring any further Iranian attacks and avoiding another Middle East war. It all was occurring as the administration deals with a host of other foreign policy issues and has no national security adviser, following the recent ouster of John Bolton. Echoing Trump’s warning from earlier in the week, Vice President Mike Pence said American forces were “locked and loaded” for war if needed. But he also noted that Trump said he doesn’t want war with Iran or anyone else. “As the president said yesterday, it’s ‘certainly looking like’ Iran was behind these attacks,” Pence said. “And our intelligence community at this very hour is working diligently to review the evidence.” The analysts’ task was to connect the dots provided by satellite data and other highly classified intelligence with physical evidence from the scene of the attack, which American-provided Saudi defenses had failed to stop. Fourteen months before voters will decide on Trump’s reelection, he is increasingly mindful of his 2016 campaign promises, including his pledge to bring American troops home after nearly two decades of continuous war. But he also promised to apply fresh pressure on Iran, a pledge complicated by the latest apparent provocation. The at-times divergent messages from his administration, officials say, mirror internal staff divisions and even the president’s own hesitations. “You know, I’m not looking to get into new conflict,” Trump said Monday, “but sometimes you have to.” Aides say he’s taking a prudent pause. “The president’s being cautious, and if he were banging the gong today about Iran being the culprit, inevitably, without presenting the case to the American people, everyone would be saying he’s a warmonger,” said White House spokesman Hogan Gidley. The crisis comes amid upheaval in Trump’s national security team. His national security adviser, Bolton, departed earlier this month after policy clashes, including disagreements over how best to pressure Iran into returning to the negotiating table on its nuclear and missile programs. Iran’s alleged involvement in a recent series of provocations in the Gulf coincides with key moments in the unraveling of the country’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. in May of last year. That was followed by a U.S. economic sanctions campaign, dubbed “maximum pressure,” that has cut off much of Iran’s international oil exports. Iran, in turn, has said that no one will be able to export oil from the region if Tehran can’t In effect, the country has answered Trump’s economic warfare with its own version — attacks on economic targets that have been audacious but thus far not caused casualties. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that U.S. military experts were in Saudi Arabia working with counterparts to “do the forensics on the attack” — gleaning evidence that could help build a convincing case for where the weapons originated. Speaking to reporters in London, Dunford noted — as Trump had on Monday — that the attack was not aimed at the United States or U.S. forces. Therefore, he said, no steps were being taken to beef up the U.S. military presence in the Gulf region, which includes air defense forces and support troops at Prince Sultan Air Base south of the Saudi capital of Riyadh. The U.S. Navy has an aircraft carrier battle group in the area and fighter and bomber aircraft elsewhere in the Gulf. A senior administration official said the U.S. sees a role to play for the U.N. Security Council, which was created to address threats to international peace and security. The U.S. believes the attack meets that threshold, but the administration first needs to “gather the releasable” information and intelligence it has collected about the strike, according to the official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the attacks and spoke only on condition of anonymity. The security council meets next week in New York. Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Trump must fashion a response to Iran that fits his administration’s stated priority of shifting from decades of insurgency warfare in Afghanistan and the Middle East to better position the U.S. for more serious international conflict. “The military’s instinct is increasingly that you can continue to pour resources into confronting Iran, but you’re never going to fix the problem and, most importantly, you’re taking resources away from confronting the real threats to the United States, which are China and Russia,” he said. Trump also faces a skeptical Congress. A bipartisan group of House members on Monday called for new language in 2020 defense spending bills that would prevent the president from starting a war with Iran without congressional authorization. Pence met behind
Martha Roby: Deterrence, diplomacy, and discipline
North Korea has been causing problems for the United States and the world for decades, but their belligerence has recently reached a new level. North Korea’s successful test launch of an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) is a clear sign of escalated hostilities and confirmation that this nation and its dictator pose a direct threat to the United States. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has called North Korea “the most urgent threat to security and peace,” and that was prior to the regime’s most recent missile test. Secretary Mattis testified before our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee recently and described how horrible a conflict with North Korea would be, especially for neighboring countries like South Korea and Japan. “It would be a war that fundamentally we don’t want,” he said. “Our allies and us would win at great cost.” I concur with the Secretary’s assessment that an armed conflict with North Korea should be avoided, and that’s why I believe the United States is at a turning point in terms of dealing with this rogue nation. Former President Barack Obama’s policy toward North Korea was called “strategic patience,” which amounted to ignoring many of North Korea’s antics with the hopes that isolation from the world community would prompt the regime to reconsider its aggression and pursue a more peaceful course. The problem with that policy is that it depends upon a somewhat rational leader who is looking out for the well-being of his people. Unfortunately, Kim Jong Un is the opposite, which is why many of my colleagues and I warned that this policy was naïve and would only embolden the regime. That ultimately turned out to be correct, and now Kim Jong Un is testing his boundaries to see how the United States is going to respond under the Trump Administration. Dealing with North Korea is not a simple issue, but it is clear that “strategic patience” did not work. Moving forward the United States must take a more direct approach to make it clear that North Korea’s continued aggression will result in crippling consequences. I believe addressing the regime comes down to three components: deterrence, diplomacy, and discipline. First, we need military assets in place in the Pacific to deter and ultimately stop an attack should one happen. That’s the purpose of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). THAAD is a missile system that can be deployed to intercept and stop ballistic missiles from hostile countries. THAAD is now strategically located in both Guam and South Korea. These are the primary ways we could stop a missile attack from North Korea. If THAAD sounds familiar, that’s probably because these missiles are manufactured at Lockheed Martin’s Pike County Operations Center near Troy. These missiles are a critical component in our efforts to counter North Korea’s aggression, which is why I made missile programs a funding priority in the Fiscal Year 2018 Defense Appropriations bill. Second, our country needs skilled international diplomacy now more than ever. We need to build an international coalition to send a message to North Korea that the world’s patience has run out and that their aggression will no longer be tolerated. I have been pleased with the Trump Administration’s response to the North Korea situation. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley have been pitch perfect in their messages internationally, but the real challenges lie ahead. Third, we must use more than just our military to combat North Korea’s aggression. We need to use every available tool to discipline Kim Jong Un where it really counts: his bank account. Congress recently voted to increase economic sanctions against the regime, and that’s a good start. I’d like to see the Trump Administration use our considerable American influence to ensure that nations like China, Russia, and others do not enable North Korea by doing business with the regime. Just like with Iran, we have to make it clear that trade and cooperation with any nation that threatens the United States and our allies is unacceptable. ••• Martha Roby represents Alabama’s Second Congressional District. She lives in Montgomery, Alabama with her husband Riley and their two children.
Marco Rubio says next step in Syria is negotiating regime change
Sen. Marco Rubio says the next step in Syria should be to work with Sunni governments to discuss “an alternative” government in Syria. Rubio is a Florida Republican and onetime rival of President Donald Trump. The conservative tells NBC’s “Today” show that Trump should reach out to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Turkey, to discuss ways to get Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down and create a new regime. Assad has not responded to diplomatic pressure in the past, but Rubio says the military strikes could change that. He says, “We need to now move forward through a combination of diplomacy and, quite frankly, the support of groups on ground, particularly non-jihadist Sunni groups, to create alternatives to the Assad regime.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Hillary Clinton criticizes Trump budget cuts to diplomatic programs
Hillary Clinton on Friday criticized President Donald Trump‘s proposal to slash billions of dollars from diplomacy and jabbed rhetorically at her former rival, remarking on her penchant for “talking about research, evidence and facts.” The former first lady, New York senator and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee addressed an awards ceremony at Georgetown University and focused on advancing the rights of women and girls. Clinton said a rising tide of women’s rights lifts all nations and stressed that global progress depends on the progress of women. Clinton, who also served as secretary of state during the Obama administration, insisted that the Trump administration’s proposed deep cut of roughly 31 percent for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development would make the U.S. less secure while undercutting the country’s standing worldwide. “Turning our backs on diplomacy won’t make our country safer,” Clinton said. Under the Trump budget proposal unveiled early this month, the United Nations and dozens of its affiliated agencies would face significant cuts and possibly an end to U.S. contributions. Dramatic reductions in U.S.-led health, development and climate change initiatives would require other donors to fill the gaps. Clinton was greeted by chants of “Hillary! Hillary!” but drew the loudest applause when she remarked, “here I go again, talking about research, evidence and facts.” The Trump administration has repeatedly been criticized for making false claims. Senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway earlier this year defended disputed numbers on the inaugural crowd from the White House as “alternative facts.” Clinton stressed the need for spending on diplomacy by quoting Defense Secretary James Mattis, who said cutting funds for the State Department means he has to buy more ammunition. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
After 2 months, Jim Mattis is only Donald Trump pick at Pentagon
Jim Mattis is not lonely in the Pentagon, but two months into his tenure as secretary of defense not a single political appointee has joined him. The retired Marine general, who took office just hours after President Donald Trump was sworn in, has sparred with the White House over choices for high-priority civilian positions that, while rarely visible to the public, are key to developing and implementing defense policy at home and abroad. When the Obama administration closed shop in January, only one of its top-tier Pentagon political appointees stayed in place — Robert Work, the deputy defense secretary. He agreed to remain until his successor is sworn in. So far, no nominee for deputy has been announced, let alone confirmed by the Senate. The administration has announced four nominees for senior Pentagon civilian jobs, and two of those later withdrew. Trump’s nominee to lead the Army, Vincent Viola, withdrew in early February because of financial entanglements, and about three weeks later Philip B. Bilden, the Navy secretary nominee, withdrew for similar reasons. On Tuesday, the White House announced it intends to nominate John J. Sullivan to be the Pentagon’s chief lawyer. In January, Trump announced former congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico as his nominee to be Air Force secretary, but he has not submitted the nomination to the Senate. “The process has definitely slowed,” said Dov Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon budget chief during the George W. Bush administration. He said he would be surprised if Mattis gets any senior appointees confirmed before mid-April. “The delays are already causing much consternation among allies, especially in Europe and Southeast Asia, as their most senior working level day-to-day contacts – the deputy assistant secretaries — may not come onboard until the summer,” Zakheim said in an email exchange. “Lots of mayhem could take place before then.” This is not an issue at the Pentagon alone. While most of Trump’s choices for Cabinet and Cabinet-level posts have won Senate confirmation, 500-plus government-wide sub-Cabinet level positions requiring Senate confirmation remain unfilled. There are few visible signs that the absence of Trump appointments in the Pentagon has affected its management of the counter-Islamic State campaign or military operations in Afghanistan. But the president has ordered a number of major policy reviews that require senior-level Pentagon attention, including counter-IS strategy, nuclear and missile defense plans and a blueprint for building up and improving the combat-readiness of the military. Even Republicans are taking note. Rep. Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said at a hearing Wednesday that when lawmakers have nuclear policy questions, “we do not have people in place in the new administration to answer some of those questions.” Pentagon insiders say the appointment process, while contentious at times, has not produced significantly more friction than previous transitions in which the White House changed political parties. Democrat Barack Obama had fewer issues at the Pentagon when he took office in January 2009 because he kept in place Bush’s defense chief, Robert Gates, and Obama’s transition team quickly settled on nominees for key senior defense policy jobs. When Bush made Donald H. Rumsfeld his defense chief in January 2001, Rumsfeld did not get his policy chief, Douglas Feith, in place until July. Rumsfeld, however, had an advantage that Mattis does not: some of his predecessor’s senior staff agreed to remain for months. By Rumsfeld’s count, it took the Bush White House 70 days on average to approve a recommended nominee, plus 52 more days for Senate confirmation. A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, said Mattis is committed to getting the right people in key jobs. “He and his staff are actively conducting interviews and working collaboratively with the White House to nominate people to the Senate for confirmation,” Davis said. “We are in the final stages of vetting on several of these, and expect they will be announced soon.” Walter Slocombe, who served as policy chief at the Pentagon during Bill Clinton‘s presidency, said the appointments process is unavoidably sluggish because of extensive political and security vetting. “Having said that, it’s a very bad idea that it takes so long,” he said. Career civil servants can fill the void for a time, but their power is limited. “They’ll do enough to keep the engine turning over and be a big help in a crisis, but they’re not able to take the lead on policy formation,” he added. Mattis has said little publicly about the pace of getting a new team installed, but officials familiar with the process say he and the White House have been at loggerheads on some picks. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Mattis may be about to prevail in one important appointment — Anne W. Patterson, a career diplomat and former ambassador to Egypt and Pakistan who recently retired after serving as the State Department’s assistant secretary for near eastern affairs. Officials expect her to be announced soon as Trump’s nominee to serve as undersecretary of defense for policy, a position of broad responsibility for steering policy. Critics, including some Republicans, opposed her selection on grounds that as ambassador in Cairo she was too accommodating to former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Among other key Pentagon offices still without a presidentially appointed leader: intelligence, budget chief, weapons buyer, technology chief and personnel policy. These and other top positions were vacated by Obama appointees at the end of his term or earlier last year; they are now run by holdover officials in what the Pentagon calls a “performing the duties” status, meaning they can do the work unless it involves a duty that by law can be performed only by a Senate-confirmed appointee. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Rex Tillerson takes low-key approach as America’s top diplomat
When North Korea fired a ballistic missile into waters between South Korea and Japan, President Donald Trump moved quickly to show U.S. resolve. He appeared within hours alongside visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and said the U.S. “stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100 percent.” Trump happened to be hosting Abe that day in Florida. Yet his lack of any mention of a U.S. treaty ally South Korea didn’t go unnoticed by the new secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. So, while on his first official trip, Tillerson arranged a three-way meeting in Germany with the Japanese and South Korean foreign ministers to show the U.S. wasn’t picking favorites, according to a senior State Department official. The talks culminated in a joint declaration in which the U.S. pledged to defend a pair of Asian nations that don’t always get along. There was no elaborate ceremony before the video cameras, no speeches, as their written statement went out in low-key fashion. It was Tillerson’s way. Cautious, reserved and intent on avoiding the spotlight, the former Exxon Mobil CEO is proving to be everything his extroverted Oval Office boss is not. In his first weeks as America’s top diplomat, Tillerson has gone to great lengths to avoid attracting attention, despite a growing perception in Washington that the State Department is being sidelined by a power-centric White House. Some State Department officials have been told by the White House to expect drastic budget cuts, with much of the reduction potentially coming out of U.S. foreign aid money. Trump and his team have also told those interviewing for top State Department jobs that significant staffing cuts will come. Some appear to have started already. While Tillerson was in Germany, several senior management and advisory positions were eliminated. The staffers were reassigned. Some other top posts are vacant, and there are no signs they’ll be quickly filled. While Tillerson has met or spoken with dozens of foreign counterparts in his first weeks, the White House is driving the front-page diplomacy. The lack of State Department involvement has flustered many long-time diplomats. When Trump met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, acting Deputy Secretary Tom Shannon was assigned to represent the agency in the meeting because Tillerson was flying to Germany. At the last minute, Shannon was blocked from participating in the meeting. The meeting went on without State Department representation. It was “modified to allow for a more personal discussion,” according to a U.S. official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. Tillerson had dined the evening before with Netanyahu and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and a White House aide who has emerged as Trump’s top emissary to Israel, Mexico and other countries. That is a role that traditionally has fallen to the secretary of state. Tillerson has barely spoken in public, save for greeting U.S. diplomats on his first day and brief comments after a get-together with Russia’s foreign minister. It’s a sharp contrast with the Obama administration’s last secretary of state, John Kerry, who routinely found his way to the center of global crises, enthusiastically fulfilling the “public diplomacy” part of the job. Whereas Kerry exhausted staff with impromptu, whirlwind foreign trips and constant press appearances, Tillerson has made it known to his staff that he wants a lower profile. In private, the Texas oilman with the booming baritone voice is deliberate, independent and cool-headed, according to U.S. and foreign diplomats who have interacted with him and who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to avoid possible diplomatic fallout from discussing private conversations. A common thread in Tillerson’s meetings with diplomats has been an emphasis on the safety of U.S. personnel, State Department officials said. It’s a continuation of a theme Tillerson touched on when he spoke to staffers on his first day, and one he plans to echo this coming week on a trip to Mexico City with Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. Tillerson will stop at the U.S. Embassy to meet with American diplomats, officials said. Diplomats from several foreign countries said Tillerson is playing it safe in high-level meetings so far, avoiding extemporaneous comments. He shows up seeming well-prepared and confident on the substance of issues, rarely consulting his aides or written notes, they reported. In Germany last week, Tillerson urged China to help address North Korea’s nuclear threat. He called on Russia to honor a 2015 peace plan for Ukraine. While those signs of continuity in U.S. policy may have assuaged some foreign leaders’ concerns about Trump, Tillerson’s tight-lipped nature unsettled others. After meeting Tillerson, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault lamented the “vague” U.S. position on issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tillerson told several of his international partners the U.S. is still in “listening mode,” leaving some with the perception that Trump may craft U.S. foreign policy on the fly. In a rare interaction with reporters, Tillerson said before leaving Germany he was bringing home “many” messages for Trump. Asked to share a few, he demurred. “Not until I share it with him,” he said. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Cuba’s Fidel Castro, who defied U.S. for 50 years, dies at 90
Former President Fidel Castro, who led a rebel army to improbable victory in Cuba, embraced Soviet-style communism and defied the power of 10 U.S. presidents during his half-century rule, has died at age 90. With a shaking voice, President Raul Castro said on state television that his older brother died at 10:29 p.m. Friday. He ended the announcement by shouting the revolutionary slogan: “Toward victory, always!” Castro’s reign over the island-nation 90 miles (145 kilometers) from Florida was marked by the U.S.-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and the Cuban Missile Crisis a year later that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. The bearded revolutionary, who survived a crippling U.S. trade embargo as well as dozens, possibly hundreds, of assassination plots, died 10 years after ill health forced him to hand power over to Raul. Castro overcame imprisonment at the hands of dictator Fulgencio Batista, exile in Mexico and a disastrous start to his rebellion before triumphantly riding into Havana in January 1959 to become, at age 32, the youngest leader in Latin America. For decades, he served as an inspiration and source of support to revolutionaries from Latin America to Africa. His commitment to socialism was unwavering, though his power finally began to fade in mid-2006 when a gastrointestinal ailment forced him to hand over the presidency to Raul in 2008, provisionally at first and then permanently. His defiant image lingered long after he gave up his trademark Cohiba cigars for health reasons and his tall frame grew stooped. “Socialism or death” remained Castro’s rallying cry even as Western-style democracy swept the globe and other communist regimes in China and Vietnam embraced capitalism, leaving this island of 11 million people an economically crippled Marxist curiosity. He survived long enough to see Raul Castro negotiate an opening with U.S. President Barack Obama on Dec. 17, 2014, when Washington and Havana announced they would move to restore diplomatic ties for the first time since they were severed in 1961. He cautiously blessed the historic deal with his lifelong enemy in a letter published after a month-long silence. Obama made a historic visit to Havana in March 2016. Carlos Rodriguez, 15, was sitting in Havana’s Miramar neighborhood when he heard that Fidel Castro had died. “Fidel? Fidel?” he said, slapping his head in shock. “That’s not what I was expecting. One always thought that he would last forever. It doesn’t seem true.” “It’s a tragedy,” said 22-year-old nurse Dayan Montalvo. “We all grew up with him. I feel really hurt by the news that we just heard.” Fidel Castro Ruz was born Aug. 13, 1926, in eastern Cuba’s sugar country, where his Spanish immigrant father worked first recruiting labor for U.S. sugar companies and later built up a prosperous plantation of his own. Castro attended Jesuit schools, then the University of Havana, where he received law and social science degrees. His life as a rebel began in 1953 with a reckless attack on the Moncada military barracks in the eastern city of Santiago. Most of his comrades were killed and Fidel and his brother Raul went to prison. Fidel turned his trial defense into a manifesto that he smuggled out of jail, famously declaring, “History will absolve me.” Freed under a pardon, Castro fled to Mexico and organized a rebel band that returned in 1956, sailing across the Gulf of Mexico to Cuba on a yacht named Granma. After losing most of his group in a bungled landing, he rallied support in Cuba’s eastern Sierra Maestra mountains. Three years later, tens of thousands spilled into the streets of Havana to celebrate Batista’s downfall and catch a glimpse of Castro as his rebel caravan arrived in the capital on Jan. 8, 1959. The U.S. was among the first to formally recognize his government, cautiously trusting Castro’s early assurances he merely wanted to restore democracy, not install socialism. Within months, Castro was imposing radical economic reforms. Members of the old government went before summary courts, and at least 582 were shot by firing squads over two years. Independent newspapers were closed and in the early years, homosexuals were herded into camps for “re-education.” In 1964, Castro acknowledged holding 15,000 political prisoners. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled, including Castro’s daughter Alina Fernandez Revuelta and his younger sister Juana. Still, the revolution thrilled millions in Cuba and across Latin America who saw it as an example of how the seemingly arrogant Yankees could be defied. And many on the island were happy to see the seizure of property of the landed class, the expulsion of American gangsters and the closure of their casinos. Castro’s speeches, lasting up to six hours, became the soundtrack of Cuban life and his 269-minute speech to the U.N. General Assembly in 1960 set the world body’s record for length that still stood more than five decades later. As Castro moved into the Soviet bloc, Washington began working to oust him, cutting U.S. purchases of sugar, the island’s economic mainstay. Castro, in turn, confiscated $1 billion in U.S. assets. The American government imposed a trade embargo, banning virtually all U.S. exports to the island except for food and medicine, and it severed diplomatic ties on Jan. 3, 1961. On April 16 of that year, Castro declared his revolution to be socialist, and the next day, about 1,400 Cuban exiles stormed the beach at the Bay of Pigs on Cuba’s south coast. But the CIA-backed invasion failed. The debacle forced the U.S. to give up on the idea of invading Cuba, but that didn’t stop Washington and Castro’s exiled enemies from trying to do him in. By Cuban count, he was the target of more than 630 assassination plots by militant Cuban exiles or the U.S. government. The biggest crisis of the Cold War between Washington and Moscow exploded on Oct. 22, 1962, when President John F. Kennedy announced there were Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and imposed a naval blockade of the island. Humankind held its
Analysis: In debate, Hillary Clinton was prepared, Donald Trump was Trump
She was at her best. He was not at his worst. Weeks of Super Bowl-style hype aside, Monday night’s 90 minutes of heated clashes between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump probably didn’t shove many undecided voters off the fence. If Clinton aimed to push her famously unpredictable opponent into a made-for-sharing disqualifying moment, she didn’t quite get there. If Trump set out to show America — particularly women — he’s completed the transformation from cartoonish pop culture staple to leader worthy of the Oval Office, he still has a way to go. But in a debate full of feisty exchanges and a personal scuffle or two, the candidates demonstrated clearly how they’ve gotten this far. Clinton was polished, prepared and proud of it —a Hermione Granger at a podium. She came with sharp and practiced answers, most notably a newly direct one for the questions about her private email server that has dogged her candidacy for months. She grinned broadly and calmly, even when under fire, and she mocked but only gently the man she called “Donald.” “I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did,” Clinton said. “And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that’s a good thing.” Trump addressed his opponent as “Secretary Clinton” — even asking for her approval for the term — but by the end he called her “Hillary.” The care he took with her title was a reminder of the voters he was aiming to win over. Women, particularly college-educated white women, are the key to Trump turning his current burst of momentum into a sustained surge that lasts until Election Day. The 70-year-old businessman has struggled to persuade women, even those with doubts about the first woman president, to get behind his bid, thanks in part to his performances in past debates, which led to cringe-worthy challenges to moderator Megyn Kelly or opponent Carly Fiorina. Trump avoided another jaw-dropping, decorum-busting moment on Monday night, but it was hard to see that he did much to soften his image. He repeatedly and aggressively interrupted Clinton to rebut or deny her charges, at times talking over her or interrupting. When asked by moderator Lester Holt to explain a previous comment that Clinton doesn’t have a “presidential look,” Trump simply repeated the comment. “She doesn’t have the look. She doesn’t have the stamina,” he said. “To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina.” Clinton came prepared to pounce: “Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world, or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina.” As the debate went on, Clinton seemed to gain confidence and a better sense of timing. When Trump concluded a long and tangled defense of his years-long campaign to challenge President Barack Obama’s citizenship, she paused for a moment to let Trump’s words sink in. “Well, just listen to what you heard,” she said. Trump, too, had his moments. He delivered a searing indictment of Clinton as just another insider proposing the same-old solutions for an economy on the brink of “crashing down.” The riff was a potent reminder of why his candidacy has become a vehicle for the alienated white Americans feeling pinched by the economy and forces of globalization. “Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Never going to happen,” he said, encapsulating the core message of his campaign. He showed Clinton remains vulnerable on her support for trade deals, forcing Clinton in her clearest fib of the night when she denied having called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the “gold standard” of trade agreements and claimed she merely said she hoped it would be a good deal. But Trump missed opportunities to dive into Clinton’s other vulnerabilities. She was also able to make swift work of her email scandal, saying simply “It was a mistake and I take responsibility for that.” “That’s for sure,” Trump interjected, but left it there. The Republican didn’t raise Clinton’s description of half of his supporters as “deplorables” or the Clinton Foundation and its donor network. That left Clinton largely free to play the prepared grown up to Trump’s agitated upstart. Even Trump granted her that: “She’s got experience,” he said. “But it’s bad experience. And this country can’t afford to have another four years of that kind of experience.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
