Republican White House hopeful Donald Trump has taken sexism to a new low, but it's the divisions he has drawn in the US which also disturb, writes Aishwarya Kumar.
Up until the Washington Post released a 2005 tape of the republican nominee Donald Trump gloating about sexual assault, I never thought he could possibly shock me more during this election campaign.
But he did. And it took me by surprise.
I should have known what the man is capable of. After all, he called women “Miss Piggy”, and “overweight”, in the past.
This was 48 hours before the second presidential debate. We all knew before the debate even began that Trump was going to dig up some dirt against Hillary Clinton to survive the campaign. And he did. Or at least he tried to by attacking Bill Clinton.
But before that, he released a video apology talking about how he never said he was perfect and that is was “locker-room banter”. The apology was neither earnest, nor remorseful.
It felt like he had other things in mind, and he did. Within hours, he gathered three women for an impromptu press release where they all claimed that Bill Clinton raped them.
And then the debate began: Every time Anderson Cooper brought up the 2005 tapes, Trump responded with: “I am going to demolish Isis.”
It took Cooper three times to get Trump to say: “No, I did not (do what I talked about on the tapes).” To dismiss such lewd remarks as “locker-room banter” is not only disrespectful of women, but also of athletes. Having played badminton for the better part of my adult life and having covered professional athletes in the US, I can assure you that that’s not what athletes talk about in their locker room.
The entirety of the 90 minutes had Trump blame Clinton for 30 years of bad decisions. He attacked her on the Iraq War, on Obamacare, on wanting to increase refugee intake. And during all that time, never did he tell the people what he would do if he were to be the next president of the US.
With less than a month to go, we have absolutely no idea what his plans are on dealing with Islamic State, terrorism, Islamophobia and Syria. Zilch.
Meanwhile Clinton talked at length about how she would fix Obamacare, how she would increase taxes paid by the rich and get rid of the loopholes that enable people like Trump to avoid paying taxes for decades. This, after trying to explain to the millions of viewers that most of what Trump was saying was either not true or exaggerated.
Why then is Clinton not leading the polls by tens of points? Why then is the race so close?
Because Trump knows how to talk the talk. Has he ever walked the walk? No. But he knows how to play the blame game, and how to play it well. He talks about money and jobs, and people immediately think: “Oh, he is a businessman. He can run this country.”
I have personally talked to more than two dozen people during my time covering the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Cleveland who thought he’d make an excellent president because he is a businessman.
“We’ve had enough of politicians who messed up our country. America needs a businessman right now,” they all said. And that is when I realised they had absolutely no idea that he had absolutely no idea what he would do with matters of national interest like terrorism, health insurance, taxes and jobs.
So when he brought in three women who claimed Bill Clinton raped them, all was forgotten about his “grab them by the p*ssy” or “Miss Piggy” comments. Headlines read: Donald Trump ends nightmare week with over-the-top debate.
It is ironic how he brought in women to tarnish the reputation of Bill Clinton when his reputation is in tatters for actually being caught promoting assault. But if even that could somehow be fathomed, there is the issue of blatant sexism at play here: How is it Hillary's fault if Bill is in fact a “rapist” or a “cheater?” Isn’t blaming the woman for what her husband did the prime definition of sexism? Do you see the double standards here? How is Hillary responsible for Bill Clinton? She is his wife, but she is no way at fault for the decisions he took.
Dig up dirt on Hillary and then tell her that it's her fault. I will completely be on board with that. But this, no. Not as a woman, not as a human being.
The difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton takes responsibility for her actions. She is in no way perfect. When the subject of 33 000 deleted emails came up, she immediately apologised, again, and said that was a mistake.
When Trump pointed out that she had called some of his supporters irredeemable, she said she was mistaken in saying that. What she actually meant was their leader, Trump, was inciting division and violence among his supporters.
And that I absolutely agree with. I was in Chicago when his rally was cancelled because of Trump and anti-Trump protests. What I saw that day can never be considered ordinary. That day, the division he created was evident.
I had immense respect for Clinton after the first debate: It takes courage to stand up against a foul-mouthed person like Trump. You saw the steady rise in his voice as the debate progressed, both during the first and the second one. You can't fight him by screaming louder than him. You fight by staying silent until it is your turn to talk. And you make your turn count. And that is exactly what Clinton did. Both times.
She smiled and shook her head when Trump said something ridiculous and false, which was often, and she waited for the moderators to prompt her before she spoke.
Both Cooper and Martha Raddatz were stern with Trump when he interrupted Hillary. “It is her turn to speak now. She did not interrupt you when it was your turn,” they said.
And again, she responded to that with a smile and a nod. That shows she is a leader who knows not to take the bait. She knows how to handle tough opponents who will play ugly to win. Even Trump said that at the end of the second debate: “She is tough and she never quits. I respect that about her,” he said.
I was right next to the stage when she became the first ever woman nominee of a major political party in Philadelphia. I was in the hall when she gave her acceptance speech. The stark difference in the environment took me by surprise. While the RNC was a week-long show where people talked about banning Muslims and building walls, the Democratic National Convention was a breath of fresh air where people talked about inclusion and being “stronger together”.
Even though I'm not from the US and I never really pledged allegiance to either party, I knew the environment I did not want to be around.
If Trump becomes the president, that’s how the whole of the US will be - negative and filled with hatred.
* Aishwarya Kumar is with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in Chicago. She is based at The Star until December.
The Star