Here are the three key points (one per debate!) that were brought to the public's attention for further discussion:
|Big Bird's job is in jeopardy.|
|If you find yourself with a glut of female|
job applicants, a good way to catalog
them all is to sort them into binders.
|Military tactics and weapons are|
drastically different than they
were 95 years ago.
- "Is that it?" - Yeah, pretty much.
- "They didn't talk about anything else?" - Well yeah. They talked about lots of things. But these are what got stuck in the filter, so to speak.
- "Can you at least illustrate the relevance by telling me what each candidate's stance on these three issues is?" - I think they were mostly against them, more or less.
- "Well, how the hell is this stuff supposed to influence my vote?" - Oh, I don't know. I don't necessarily think it should. Just because people chose to fixate on these things doesn't mean they're important.
- "How did each candidate perform?" - Romney was like, 'Grrrrr' and Obama was all, 'wha-a-a-a...?' and then Romney was like, 'you heard me, about the war or whatever' and Obama was all like, 'no, it was the economy'. And stuff.
- "No, I want to know who did a better job of presenting their views, who conducted themself in the most 'presidential' manner?" - Oh. Neither of them. If you hear somebody say their candidate was the more presidential of the two, first of all, their candidate probably lost that particular debate. But more importantly, that person doesn't know what a president does. The debate is to being the president what a job interview is to having that job. You know how after you get a job, you never behave the way you did in the interview ever again? Same thing here. A debate is a competition. It's not about being a president, it's about getting to be a president.