After the way Holt handled his job of moderating the debates, some have wondered just HOW ‘impartial’ he really is.
At the debate, Trump faced some tough questions from Holt. Holt also challenged some of Trump’s answers, before Hillary had a chance to respond. He did not do the same with Hillary.
Fox News counted Six Ways he played favorites:
Clinton discussed fact-checking three times, even imploring her media friends: “Well, I hope the fact checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard.” Holt sure was. He dragged the debate to the left in six major ways:
1. Jobs: Holt pressed Trump with two questions on how he was going to add jobs even though the first answer discussed renegotiating trade deals.
2. Taxes: He portrayed the tax plans from the left – Clinton wanting to tax the rich and Trump “calling for tax cuts for the wealthy,” forcing Trump to correct him.
3. Tax Returns: Trump got hit hard with tax return questions for “business conflicts” while Hillary got a slide on emails, her hidden speeches and Clinton Foundation business conflicts.
4. Birthers: Holt asked a “birther” question that lasted longer than Clinton’s email answer. He then added three separate follow-ups to jam up Trump.
5. Iraq: He hammered Trump for supporting the Iraq War, downplaying how Hillary had voted to do the same.
6. Hillary’s Gaffe: When asked about biased policing, Clinton said, “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.” Holt ignored it, rather than challenge the idea everyone is bigoted.
What’s your take on his handling of the debate?
Was this a case of him impartially choosing from questions that he thought important, with the really controversial Hillary ones being left out by happenstance?
Was this a case of feeling peer pressure from Hillary’s surrogates (i.e. journalists) ?
Was this a deliberate attempt to tilt the playing field because he likes her better?
We have OUR theories.
What are YOURS?