The split screen

During the most recent presidential debate, viewers across the nation might have felt as though they were seated in the audience of a dramatic theatrical performance.

I came away with the impression that neither candidate should quit his day job. Acting is not either man’s strong suit.

Networks that aired the debate managed to capture the essence of both of these amateur actors via split screen. This allowed us, the voters, to sit at home and watch the candidates’ failed attempts to mug their way to the White House.   

When I say “mug,” I’m not talking about street theft. I’m referring to the facial expressions these candidates used to convey a message to the audience when it wasn’t their turn to speak.

Sure, it was probably frustrating for Barack Obama and John McCain to listen to each other make accusations of only questionable validity. They might have argued that they were not given adequate time for a rebuttal – after all, there are only so many claims one can make in two minutes.

So instead of making the most of the 120 seconds moderator Bob Scheiffer provided, the candidates chose to utilize the split screen. As their opponent spoke, they let their faces do the refuting.

Obama would mention concerns “Joe The Plumber” should have about McCain’s policies. McCain would begin his display with a smirk. The smirk would then turn to incredulous laughter and, voila, the audience sees that McCain is trying to sell us on the idea that Obama’s allegations are preposterous.

When McCain spoke, Obama was guilty of the same immaturity. Their laughter was supposed to be a tool to indicate they were smooth and confident and the claims were too ridiculous to be dignified with a rebuttal.

The benefit of the split screen was that we got to see which remarks triggered each candidate to make notes to themselves – which items they would address when it was their turn to speak.

The drawback of this format?

I now feel like no matter who I elect, I’m empowering a man who displayed the maturity (and acting skills) of a sixth grader during the debates.

As if the two didn’t disappoint me enough, their mugging wasn’t even convincing.
They should have listened attentively to each other’s allegations, waited their turn to address their issues and respected their opponent like a true leader would.
Though we, the voters, are not in the public eye nearly as much as the candidates, our actions are still viewed through a split screen. Besides telephone conversations, our reactions to the events and conversations around us are constantly monitored even when we’re unaware that some eyes are on us.

We can learn from our potential presidents and try to avoid immature and disrespectful behavior like the kind the current candidates displayed. It felt as if the candidates were auditioning to be silent film stars rather than commander in chief.