HAIL TO THE SNIFFER-IN-CHIEF!

        Donald Trump’s performance in the second presidential debate confirmed the impression of viewers of the first debate that of the two candidates he is the only one who is qualified to step immediately into the role of Sniffer-in-Chief. There is no argument on that point from his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
        He is also to be complimented for the fact that his performance exceeded all expectations.
The bar was at floor level.
        Then, too, he didn’t glaringly self-destruct this time, as he did in the first debate; ergo, according to Fox News, he won.
        Surely his supporters must have been pleased with how skillfully their hero avoided answering every question he was asked, and how clever he was at talking without ever saying anything, a tactic he has developed to perfection. What is even more remarkable, he does it so easily and unconsciously that his supporters are not even aware of it! How much more exciting they find his irrelevant
rambling than Hillary Clinton’s coherent discourse.

Trump the Stalker

        How proud they must have been, too, that their tell-it-like-it-is candidate managed to avoid reverting to his usual profane language for almost ninety minutes! And at least some of his less hard core supporters were apparently happy with his non-apologetic apology for the recent video of his sexually explicit and abusive conversation with Billy Bush.
        Mr. Trump also proved himself throughout the debate to be a most capable stalker. Every time Hillary approached a questioner in the audience to answer a question, there was the Donald standing right behind her, grimacing, scowling, and looking on disapprovingly. How clever to keep himself in the picture that way! Whenever she stood to speak, there he was hovering over her. I wondered why Hillary never availed herself of the opportunity to jab him in the belly with her elbow —accidentally, of course. I suppose Donald, being such a good judge of character, knew that Hillary wouldn’t do such a thing.
        All politicians are inclined to indulge in hyperbole, some much more than others. Donald Trump has exceeded them all in that respect. Indeed, he has blurred the distinction between hyperbole and prevarication. According to the fact checkers, he bested Hillary Clinton in that regard in the first debate and he certainly did so in the second debate. In so doing he fueled the fires of hatred in his hard core supporters, who were overjoyed with Trump’s misrepresentations of his opponent’s long record as a pubic servant and with his ill-founded and outright false attacks on her character. If anyone was worried about the crumbling of his support base, Mr. Trump put that fear to rest Sunday night.
        And for these folks the sound bite of the second debate was Trump’s quip to the effect that if he were president, Hillary Clinton would be in jail. The Republican candidate distinguished himself by breaking all rules of decorum with that remark.
        So for all dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporters, there is no doubt that their candidate  distinguished himself in the second debate, but the rest of the millions of observers of his performance may well be wondering, as I am, was it more likely that he extinguished himself?