Democrat
Hillary Clinton speaks at the first presidential debate at Hofstra University on September 26, 2016.

I realize my biases probably keep me from assessing debates as objectively as some, but I still must dissent a bit from the conventional wisdom on Monday’s Trump-Clinton contest.

First, as anyone who has consistently read my column knows, I was an ardent supporter of Ted Cruz’s and was often critical of Donald Trump, particularly about his debate performances. But Trump won the Republican nomination, and like many others, I have had to regroup and shift my allegiances.

I am now going to vote for Trump — irrespective of my sincere criticisms of him during the primaries — without hesitation, mainly because of the horror I envision with a Hillary Clinton presidency.

I relate to the concerns about Trump, but I don’t get the apparent blindness of some to the egregiousness of Clinton. It’s as if their loathing of Trump not only obscures their clarity about Clinton but also, in a bizarre way, inclines them to root for her. I could be wrong; my theory is just speculation based on observation and not so objective as, say, “climate change” science.

I actually went into the debate strongly rooting for Trump, which was a surreal impulse for me and one I’d certainly not experienced before. This does not mean, fellow Cruz supporters and others, that I’ve changed my standards or sold out. It’s just that I believe a Hillary Clinton presidency would be indescribably horrendous for America.

I vividly recall many analysts on both sides of this question saying that all Trump had to do to win was to look stable, sane and in control and not commit any major gaffes — because when it comes to Trump and policy, they insisted, there are low expectations.

So as the debate began, I sensed that Trump seemed comfortable and, for him, on his game and was doing just enough parrying to make Clinton uncomfortable and slightly off her game.

I don’t agree with Trump on certain issues — especially trade — so I am not favorably disposed toward his arguments about NAFTA or China, among other things. That aside, Clinton had no answer and was uncomfortable. I also thought Trump scored against her in making the case that taxes and regulations are smothering the economy, jobs and businesses, though he should have been more relentless. Clinton had no explanation for that, either, except the tired argument that George W. Bush caused it eight years ago — because he happened to be in office when the financial meltdown, mainly caused by do-gooder liberal housing policies, almost wrecked the economy, and none of it is Obama’s fault, simply because nothing is ever his fault. Can you believe these people?

Admittedly, the debate didn’t continue this way, and Clinton remained superficially composed and smooth enough. Trump did miss opportunities, as everyone has said, and he was on the defensive too much as the debate continued.

On the other hand, Trump’s defensiveness may have been triggered by moderator Lester Holt’s one-sided, accusatory questions, mostly about personal matters, such as the birther issue and Trump’s tax returns. The problem is that Trump can’t ever seem to resist taking the bait and is compelled to defend himself against personal criticism, to the point of distraction on the substantive issues and to his overall detriment. If he could overcome that fatal temptation before the next debate, it could make a significant difference.

Using a conventional debate yardstick, Trump didn’t do that great. But so what? The experts told us he didn’t need to. He didn’t do that poorly, either. He actually did much better than I expected. He managed to challenge Clinton on many points — both offensively and defensively — without losing his cool or being disrespectful. It could be that his advisers had convinced him that calmness in demeanor would be more important. But next time, he should seize on Clinton’s countless weaknesses.

So though I don’t disagree that Trump could have been less defensive and more offensive in going after Clinton on her vulnerabilities, he did pretty much what the analysts said he needed to do — i.e., satisfy low expectations — but they refused to use that standard after the debate.

More troubling, though, is that they gave Clinton too much of a pass. They seemed mesmerized by her preparation and smoothness, especially in contrast with Trump’s. But why is this newsworthy?

Did they not see the phony smile plastered on Clinton’s face to match her phony demeanor? Did they miss her dripping condescension? Did they fail to catch wrongheaded and tired policy arguments — even if they were smoothly delivered? How about her incessant lying?

What difference does it make if Clinton speaks glibly when her unctuous words are so objectionable? Does it not bother the analysts that Clinton engaged in disgraceful race baiting, gender shaming and class warfare all night or that she didn’t offer any solutions to the perpetual economic malaise we’re in because of policies she endorses? Does it not bother them that Holt didn’t press her on her many weaknesses and scandals, such as Benghazi and emails — not to mention the economy and debt? Yes, we expect unfairness from liberal moderators, but that doesn’t mean we should quit pointing it out — especially as we analyze respective debate performances.

So let’s acknowledge that Trump should have capitalized on Clinton’s liabilities and been less defensive. But you all never expected him to, so how about holding yourselves to your own standard of assessment? Moreover, focusing on Trump’s failure to perform at a level you weren’t demanding of him in the first place clouds your vision about the bogusness of Clinton’s case, her smarminess and her lack of authenticity.

Conventionally scored, Trump may have lost handily, but in the end, I doubt the electorate views these debates — especially during this unorthodox presidential year — the same way as do college debate judges, who don’t care a whit about likability, smugness, disingenuousness or the advocacy of failed policies, as long as positions are competently delivered. I am aware of the post-debate polls supposedly showing Clinton trounced him, but I remain unconvinced.

I may well be too biased against Clinton to adequately evaluate the debate, but I am not the only one whose predispositions interfere with objective analysis.

A recent essay in The Wall Street Journal described Donald Trump thusly: “Rather like the crazy boy-emperors after the fall of the Roman Republic, he may have problems with impulse control — and an uncontrolled, ill-formed, perpetually fragmented mind.”

That this observation appeared under the headline “The Gathering Nuclear Storm” — and was written by a conservative journalist, Mark Helprin — should give us pause.

The rubber bands Trump’s advisers had wrapped around his brain to hold it together during the debate with Hillary Clinton apparently snapped after about the first half-hour. Freed from the restraints, Trump went on to rant against a former Miss Universe’s weight gain and a female comedian “who’s been very vicious” to him.

Centuries hence, historians will pore over the debate manuscript and attempt to answer the question, “Who was Rosie O’Donnell?” They will try to explain the civilizational import of Sean Hannity, whose name Trump evoked seven times as a kind of defender.

But let us move on to the “big stuff.” National security.

Trump had this to say at the debate:

“But when you look at NATO — I was asked on a major show, ‘What do you think of NATO?’ And you have to understand, I’m a businessperson. I did really well. But I have common sense. And I said, ‘Well, I’ll tell you. I haven’t given lots of thought to NATO. But two things…'”

Not having given lots of thought to NATO didn’t deter the Republican nominee from talking out loud about ditching U.S. obligations under the 67-year-old North Atlantic Treaty Organization — rattling our European allies and pleasing Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Trump went on: “I said, and very strongly, NATO could be obsolete because — and I was very strong on this, and it was actually covered very accurately in The New York Times, which is unusual for The New York Times, to be honest — but I said, ‘They do not focus on terror.’ And I was very strong. And I said it numerous times.”

During a televised Republican primary debate last year, conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt asked Trump, “What’s your priority among our nuclear triad?” Trump tossed one of his incoherent word salads, showing he hadn’t the foggiest idea what the triad was.

Marco Rubio rushed to the audience’s rescue: “The triad is our ability … to conduct nuclear attacks using airplanes, using missiles launched from silos or from the ground and also from our nuclear subs.”

In March, Trump suggested letting Japan and South Korea possibly develop their own nuclear weapons, setting off fears in Asia of an out-of-control regional arms race. Trump has done considerable business with South Korea’s Daewoo, it’s been reported. Daewoo — which fell into bankruptcy in 1999 amid a $43 billion accounting fraud — is also involved with nuclear energy and could make a lot of money if South Korea developed its own nuclear weapons.

Then there was Trump’s extraordinary act of inviting a foreign adversary, Putin’s Russia, to hack Clinton’s email. William Inboden, who served in the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration, characterized Trump’s comments as “tantamount to treason.”

Toward the end of the debate, Trump — looking deflated and exhausted — thought it wise to bring up the question of Clinton’s “stamina.”

Sensing things had not gone well for him, the boy-emperor lashed out the next day at his enemies — the microphone, the moderator and the beauty queen.

“For 90 minutes, I watched (Clinton) very carefully,” Trump bellowed. “And I was also holding back. I didn’t want to do anything to embarrass her.”

You’ve got to hand him this: He didn’t embarrass her.