I’m a political news junkie. I’m not an expert on politics — my capacity for information retention is impressively low for someone who spends roughly 90% of his time reading political blogs — but I follow what’s happening avidly, as some might follow the ups and downs of the Brangiotommykats or what have you. I was pretty disappointed that I had to miss the last two debates while in Turkey. So last night I sat down in our apartment with Shea, Andrea, and Sarah, excited to spend an hour and a half watching two master politicians at the top of their form.

I listened patiently to the first question and answer. On the second question and answer session, my eyes started to glaze over somewhat. By the time the third answer rolled around, I was about ready to shoot myself in the face.

What a bunch of horseshit. Have the other debates been this bad? First of all, they should really change the name of what’s happening on that stage. It wasn’t a debate or a dialogue. It was a monologue-off. It was like watching a theater competition.

For those who didn’t watch it (smart move), here was the format: Tom Brokaw called upon a member of the audience who had a question. The person asked his or her question. Whoever’s turn it was to start expressed appreciation for the question, then answered with talking points that loosely addressed a topic tangentially related to the question while avoiding specifics or commitments. The opposing candidate remarked that his opponent did not answer the question, and then did the same thing. Brokaw complained that the candidates were ignoring their time limits, then asked a prewritten follow-up question that followed-up on nothing actually said by either candidate. This he called the “discussion” period. Each candidate responded in turn with more talking points, blowing past their time limits. Brokaw waited patiently as they finished their answers, then complained again. Repeat for 90 minutes.

I guess it’s possible that our politics have always been this much of a charade, but for some reason it really struck me as disturbing last night. I don’t understand why we don’t have debates in which the candidates are allowed to argue. The debate would have been no different if the candidates had been in two different states, talking across each other via satellite. It might have been better, in fact, because then we wouldn’t have had to see them standing awkwardly on the same stage while never actually speaking a word to one another.

Obama answered a fraction more of the questions than McCain, so in my biased view, he came across as slightly better. But for the most part, any information gleaned from this debate could have just as easily been ascertained from reading a William S. Burroughs cut-up job on the candidates’ stump speeches. Here’s what I learned: we need to shore up the economy. Everyone is entitled to affordable health care. No more golden parachutes for Wall Street fat cats. I’m not clear on how either candidate proposes to make any of the above happen, but I’m sure they’ll figure it out once they get behind the Magical Wisdom Desk in the Oval Office.