One of the bigger questions leading into the debate last night was exactly what kind of role moderator Lester Holt would play. Would he sit back and let the candidates duke it out? Or would he interject himself into arguments to hold each candidate’s feet to the fire if they said something false?
So how did he do? Well the answer could probably be summed up with a resounding… “Meh.”
Perhaps the one good thing Holt did do was leave himself out of the debate rather than interjecting himself between Trump and Clinton...at least in the beginning. But while Holt seemed to only interject for time purposes at first, that quickly changed.
Toward the latter half of the debate, Holt repeatedly tried to interrupt and talk over the candidates. Unsurprisingly, he did this to Trump more than double the times he did this to Clinton. Trump, for his part, refused to give an inch when he felt Holt was coming in too hot against him.
The real criticism of Holt, though, comes in the questions he asked. For first part of the debate this seemed fine, as Holt asked about each candidate’s plans to bring jobs to the country and their opinions on trade deals.
But then the questions got weird.
Holt pressed Trump on why he hadn’t released his tax returns yet, lobbing an easy softball for Clinton to hit after Trump spent his time explaining exactly why he hasn't released the documents. When Trump did say that he would release his returns -- and even tying that to Clinton releasing the emails she deleted -- Holt chimed in saying, “So it’s negotiable,” before moving on.
It was, though, pretty humorous listening to Clinton accusing a fellow candidate of trying to hide something by not releasing documents. Emails, anyone?
Speaking about Clinton’s email scandal, Lester asked no questions about those at all. The only time Clinton ever addressed the controversy was when Trump brought it up when talking about his tax returns. Clinton gave a small, 30-second reply (at most) and the subject was never touched upon again.
So while the biggest scandal plaguing the Clinton campaign was ignored, Trump was repeatedly asked about the birther controversy and had to defend himself from Holt trying to take repeated jabs at him. It was another easy softball for Clinton to hit.
Probably the most directly biased question, though, was when Holt repeated Trump’s claims that Clinton didn’t have the "look" to be President, after again mentioning she was the first woman to be nominated by a major party. Despite Trump repeatedly saying he was talking about Clinton’s stamina, as evidenced during her collapse at the 9/11 memorial due to pneumonia, Holt and Clinton both framed the question as Trump criticizing her for being a woman, even if he never actually said anything like that.
So at the end of the day, Holt could have handled the debate much better than he actually did. He repeatedly interrupted and tried to inject himself into the event when talking to Trump, but was silent as Clinton squirmed, trying to explain her previous support for both NAFTA and the TPP.
Holt does score points for not caving to the Clinton campaign’s constant demands for him to be a 24/7 fact-checker, but was clearly willing to interrupt Trump more than he did Clinton. Was he a shill for Clinton, as some might claim? Perhaps not. But the bottom line is this: the fact Holt's performance is still getting attention the day after the debate proves he could have done a better job.