So Jon Stewart has a segment on the advanced age of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and this is where the "both sides" criticism must come from, because I don't see anything like it anywhere else. The mental capability of both figures is called into question here.
I confess: I don't have a problem with this segment either. They aren't saying anything that isn't true and if they were to attack Trump for senility but not go after Biden, wouldn't that seem disingenuous? I think the fact that they do so makes them more trustworthy in my eyes. And since both of the candidates have the same problem, does doing this convince anyone to change their vote? Perhaps it might make them feel less motivated in voting for Biden, but it's possible to find reasons to vote for them regardless. Things can be delegated, and it's not like there's a real choice.
When Stewart questioned why we had these two candidates again, and why they were not replaced by anyone younger, the thing that stood out to me was something that has I've noticed many times before. It's the thing conspiracy theorists don't get and are too frightened to contemplate: We don't have the sharpest tacks running things and that explains why we have the outcomes we have. Or perhaps it's more that we did have the sharpest tacks running things once, but now, perhaps, they're a little too old to still be doing it. (Of course, I've felt this way 20 years ago; so maybe the tacks were never that sharp to begin with. Alternatively, it could be a matter of corruption and greed.)
Side note: I find it personally frustrating that at one moment and time you are supposed to cheer with elation at the prospect of not being red America or blue America, but one America, and that this is supposed to be inspiring. Terrible things happened under the Bush administration, but in the name of unity and moving forward, those things were ignored. Flash forward to America in the third century of the third millennium, and it's incumbent on us all to treat red and blue America as totally distinct entities, where we must never imply that they share things in common, even when they do. The idea that we can't discuss shared shortcomings of both candidates (like concerns about advanced age) because it might be construed by some as suggesting "both sides" are bad is ridiculous. Acknowledging that two sides share things in common is not the same as fence-sitting; it does not mean you can't pick a side or that you think both sides are equally bad. It simply means you are being honest. This can be a good thing at times; if you're honest, you can help people to understand a situation better. If they understand a situation better, they might even come up with solutions.