The Debate about the Debate

No one agrees on health care, no one agrees on taxes, no one agrees on offshore drilling, and no one agrees who won a debate, because debates are stupid unscored events that are left for interpretation. That's why sports are so great, because no matter what John Lackey says about the better team not winning the ALDS, we know that in fact, the Red Sox won the series AND that they are now the better team. But not so for the debate, Fox will say John McCain was better, CNN will say Barack Obama is the winner; I say we are all the losers for accepting this crap.

The debate had so many problems, it felt like the last episode of Entourage at Joshua Tree.

Let's start with the most obvious problem, the format. There must be a better way. What about a format that worked like boxing where each round was scored by a panel of non-partisan judges? That could ensure that the actual question ends up being remotely related to the eventual answer. If the winner of each debate got even one electoral vote, I promise that Obama and McCain would have direct, understandable answers.

Why are these formats are so bland and amorphous. I keep hearing about all these "rules" that the two parties agreed to beforehand but I don't understand why we only choose to enforce them every so often. Or post them anywhere, even strip clubs post the rules somewhere. And this was supposed to be a town hall meeting format? Funny because I thought Tom Brokaw was asking most of the questions?

What about a format that doesn't include a time limit so short that they surpass it before they ever get back to answering the actual question asked? That time limit is such a joke that its offensive to be flashing those three useless stop-sign lights for while we discuss conserving energy. You wouldn't have Osama bin Laden work the lighting during a question about terrorism. How about instead of those stupid lights, we cut the candidates mics when their time runs out? What if they had an annoying buzzing noise in their earpieces when the time ran out until the talking stopped? I bet it will only take one violation for them to figure out the meaning of CHANGE in this forum. These are going to be the leaders of the free world, even Pavlov's dog got it right after a few tries.

At one point tonight, Tom Brokaw asked a question about Russia and said all it would take was a simple yes or a no. Obama spoke for 20 seconds or so and McCain said "Maybe." Are you freaking kidding me?!?! Can I vote for someone, anyone else? Sean Hannity?

We need the candidates to address each other; what if they put each other's policies on the spot. We need candidates to pull some punches; this is America, where we like feistiness and showmanship. We need some penalty for the circle-talk and mumbo-jumbo; I say air the debate on Nickelodeon and when the banter get unbearable, the banterers get a pie in the face or get slimed (better wear a tie that matches slime green!).

I think its funny that so much the campaign is directed at "Joe Six-Pack" and middle America (cue Mellencamp, who is actually liberal) yet most discussions are too hard to follow for even graduates of private four-year colleges (a non-scientific poll of my roommate and me). If we're aiming for lowest common denominator on the campaign trail, why can't we make these debates a little more layman-ish. I'm not saying turn the debate into a 'Yo Mamma' joke contest, but how about something user-friendly. I would find it more informative if the candidates fielded live questions from random citizens, if they played each other in a game of Risk or Monopoly, or if they had a geography bee.

Basically anything more than a coin flip or a rocks/papers/scissors match would be beneficial because we just don't learn anything from these messes. In three debates so far, all I've learned is that Joe Biden isn't afraid to cry, Sarah Palin has more balls than anyone else on the ballot, and that no one likes gay people. There was more to be learned from Katie Couric's few questions than from Jim Leher's, Gwen Ifill's, and Tom Brokaw's combined.

Call me crazy but I just think that if we're supposed to vote on the issues than we should get clear answers on the issues. If they're supposed to lure 'the middle' than they should talk so 'the middle' can understand. If it's our civic duty to vote, than these debates shouldn't be so unwatchable.

(And here's the really really crazy part- the Saturday Night Live spoofs of the debates are so hilarious because they are hardly spoofs. They are mostly just repetitions of the ridiculousness of what is actually being said in these forums.)

It's time for these debates to get busy living or get busy dying, something has to change. Either put some teeth in these things or let's just leave the networks to air more crappy sitcoms. As they stand, the debates are like prom: overbuilt expectations, bland memories, and in the end me going to bed alone, frustrated, and confused. At least I never had three proms in one month. We are all the debate losers.