Editorial: The Clinton-Trump debate puts onus on voter

One of the great obligations a citizen has in a democracy is to put in the work to understand the issues and skeptically assess the candidates.

It isn't enough to vote. We have a duty to ourselves and our neighbors to become informed voters.

To that end, Monday's first televised presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump is an opportunity for all of us to increase our understanding of the two major party candidates who are seeking the most powerful office on the planet.

Let's take advantage of it. Let's view the debate as a researcher studying and challenging evidence and information.

There's an expectation that given the liveliness of this year's campaign and its political characters, the debate could be entertaining - and in fact, that's why it's expected to draw a record number of viewers. But let's watch it for what we can learn, not for the entertainment.

The cable news channels are apt to turn the pre- and post-debate assessments into horse-race conversation - who won, who lost, who scored, who fumbled. Proponents for each side will claim victory with scripted commentary designed to advance their causes. Let's pay no attention to those assessments, or at least as little as we can.

What should matter isn't the assessment of the pundits and politicians and the thin and predictable social media banter. What should matter is what we learn - independent of the outside efforts to shape our opinions, trying as best we can to keep even our own biases at bay.

As voters, we all have an obligation to be informed. That means we also have an obligation to be discerning.

This isn't, after all, a debate but rather a performance - for both Clinton and Trump. Their motivations are to woo voters, not necessarily to answer questions.

Let's keep that in mind.

When each reaches out to the African American community Monday night, that won't be by accident. Both need to win African American votes if they're to be elected.

Let's listen to what each has to say of substance - not just what problems they decry or want to solve, but specifically how they expect to solve them. And are those ideas realistic?

Let's assess what they offer as facts, and if those facts sound like they could be a bit off, do the research to determine their accuracy. Let's observe their styles. Do they have the thoughtful manner and the confidence to lead?

Do they offer a vision for the future or do they focus only on each other?

Who is presidential? Who only wishes to be?