The SFSF house watched the debate last night. At one point there were seven of us in front of the telly for Obama, Romney, and the really old man from PBS who didn’t have a chance.
There was a twenty-year-old in attendance for the presidential debate. In fact, she encouraged the viewing of it. I argued against and suggested just going to my room and listening to music, and having an informal SFSF meeting with booze. Sarah was on her way home, and like I said, I preferred that to watching the debate. The 20yr/old expressed the importance of the debate and attempted to sell it by enthusiastically describing “watching while it all goes down.”
I told her I would just watch highlights, read about it, and watch what John Stewart does with it. I explained that debates are hard to sit through, because they never really say anything or answer any questions. Debate’s are largely about wedge issues and debaters throw a bunch of loaded statements and numbers out that absolutely must be fact checked in order for any rational intelligent person to come to a conclusion about the debate. The debater who was most ethical and accurate -or however they judge them- can’t be proven until later, when everything has been sorted out. By the end of the debate, the audience tends to be left frustrated and annoyed (except for die-hard, single-minded, sycophantic viewers) because the candidates barely talked about anything at all, and the things they did touch on were grandiose and, like I said require all kinds of research to confirm.
I explained to the 20yr/old that it’s just best for me to read about it later.
But we watched it. Afterward, one SFSF house inhabitant said that he felt like he gained nothing; In-fact he’d lost intelligence. I also felt confused. Mostly weird. I know I heard Romney say trillions many times. Trillions in deficits.
I think the hackneyed vagueness of it all is why, immediately after a debate, the news people talk about body-language and quickly-intelligible pronouncements, like Obama and his anniversary.