Humble Pie, Served Presidentially.

Earlier today, I read a New York Times article about Saturday Night Live's (SNL) reaction to last week's presidential debate. The article discussed how the show's writers struggled to pin the best way to make fun of the debate because there wasn't anything particularly peculiar about it other than the moderator's inability to moderate. And while people were joking with the SNL writing/directing staff that "the SNL parody of the debate is basically writing itself," there was a struggle to see what was really worth attempting to get a laugh out of. 

If you're in the business of parody, this bad news could only be buffered by the imminent Vice Presidential debate, an inevitable gaffe-fest. However, in the business of citizenship and politics, having a debate where there wasn't anything notably laughable except a threat to fire Big Bird is refreshing. 

For once, we got wall-to-wall policy and promises with no accidental Bush-isms or off-the-cuff remarks to distract us from why we have debates in the first place: to simplify the candidate comparison process, pinning the two potential presidents head-to-head with minimal network interpretation between them and America. And on top of that, with less color to the debate, we were less tantalized by witty quips and ego stabs. Instead, we were forced to face the reality of the candidates as speakers. As men. 

I say this because a read-through of the debate transcript, which is how I initially consumed the event, shows that the content of President Obama and Governor Romney's exchange almost could've been written ahead of time based on what we knew about the candidates going in. There was a remarkably low occurrence of shocking, SNL-worthy discourse aside from Governor Romney's threat to fire Big Bird. Other than that, the only surprising element was President Obama's lackluster display of charisma, which seemed to take up more of the real-time Twitter and post-event network analysis than anything the candidates said. This begs the question if President Obama's apparent loss should be viewed through a Kennedy-Nixon lens, where the latter's losing factor wasn't what he said so much as it was how he said it and how he looked.

But even if that is the case, I don't hate it! Because as dirty as this race has seemed and as disappointed as people may be with the candidates, the presidential debate last week was surprisingly tame and predictable. And as someone who has been extremely cynical and nervous about the future of our presidency, election process included, I am relieved by what I read and saw. Without all of the typical fatty catch-phrases and name-calling to chew through, the real men behind the campaign tours and attack ads were splayed nakedly across our screens with only their principles to clothe them. It showed that this race and our candidates' motivations are at least in part about doing something for us, the people, and our country.

It's easy to forget that these men are willingly volunteering to lead an entire nation in a scary, tense and often vitriolic domestic and international climate. But a presidential debate like last week's can be just as humbling for us as voters as it is for the candidates themselves.