From next week’s column: what is the word that best describes this?

— 10.13.2016 08:05 AM

Which brings us, in a circuitous fashion, to Donald Trump.

There he stood in that second presidential debate, his sweaty features twisted in a sneer, stalking Hillary Clinton around the stage. Looking like he was going to hit her. Looking like he wanted to.

Watching him shadow his opponent in that way, many women knew exactly what he intended to convey.

For those who didn’t get it – mainly men – Trump wasn’t done. He had words, too. Not once, but twice, he said that – as president – he wanted to see Hillary Clinton imprisoned. As president, he said, he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after her.

“You’d be in jail,” he hissed at her, and millions of us became witnesses.

Forget about the constitutional niceties, or what the law says. There was, and is, no doubt that Trump would certainly do what he threatened to do. In its dying days, as his feral campaign has slunk back into the swamp from which it came, all of us have seen how willing Trump has always been to use his power and money to abuse women.

But what he said? What he vowed to do, right to Hillary Clinton’s shocked face?

It is more that unconstitutional. It is more than against the law. It is more than all of that.


Comments (7)

Debates: do you wonder…

— 10.11.2016 10:23 AM

Wonder no more.

More people watch these things on YouTube than they do on TV, as I’ve written before.  Which means – as smart performers like Trudeau and Clinton evidently know – televised leaders’ debates are all about who wins the war of the clips, now, and not the actual debate itself.

 

 


Comments (10)