Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Quibble and Bubble
MoveOn.org is out with its winning ads in the "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest. I didn't vote when the initial batch was put online back around Christmas, but I am exercising my right to quibble anyhow. Of the four category winners, the youth winner, "Bring It On," is far sharper than the overall winner, "Child's Pay," which is poignant but lacks a sufficiently strong punch at the end. Nevertheless, if MoveOn reaches its financial goal and is able to run an ad during the Super Bowl, "Child's Pay" will play better with that mass audience.
Also today, the pot continued to bubble over Paul O'Neill's 60 Minutes interview. On Saturday, I commented that the most significant revelation in the interview to me was Bush's momentary concern about whether the 2003 tax cut should include relief for the middle class instead of just more for the rich. James Ridgeway offers inside information about what unfolded at the meeting O'Neill alluded to, and tells how Bush was steamrollered by the ideologues.
Recommended reading: Yesterday I wrote that I no longer care who wins the Iowa caucuses. What I meant was that I have reached the saturation point on campaign news from Iowa. The tone of the campaign has sunk to a level that causes a conscientious citizen to despair, so I wish they'd just vote, already. But for a political junkie, the maneuvering and strategizing that goes into the Iowa caucuses is a drug you can't quit cold turkey. The preference poll numbers for the race are close, but political scientist Thomas Schallert says a critical fact that is unknown--the second choice of likely caucus-goers--could be very important to Dick Gephardt. Speaking of maneuvering and strategizing, the Daily Kos has analysis today on what the five viable candidates want to achieve on Monday night. Nobody does this sort of thing better than Kos.
MoveOn.org is out with its winning ads in the "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest. I didn't vote when the initial batch was put online back around Christmas, but I am exercising my right to quibble anyhow. Of the four category winners, the youth winner, "Bring It On," is far sharper than the overall winner, "Child's Pay," which is poignant but lacks a sufficiently strong punch at the end. Nevertheless, if MoveOn reaches its financial goal and is able to run an ad during the Super Bowl, "Child's Pay" will play better with that mass audience.
Also today, the pot continued to bubble over Paul O'Neill's 60 Minutes interview. On Saturday, I commented that the most significant revelation in the interview to me was Bush's momentary concern about whether the 2003 tax cut should include relief for the middle class instead of just more for the rich. James Ridgeway offers inside information about what unfolded at the meeting O'Neill alluded to, and tells how Bush was steamrollered by the ideologues.
Recommended reading: Yesterday I wrote that I no longer care who wins the Iowa caucuses. What I meant was that I have reached the saturation point on campaign news from Iowa. The tone of the campaign has sunk to a level that causes a conscientious citizen to despair, so I wish they'd just vote, already. But for a political junkie, the maneuvering and strategizing that goes into the Iowa caucuses is a drug you can't quit cold turkey. The preference poll numbers for the race are close, but political scientist Thomas Schallert says a critical fact that is unknown--the second choice of likely caucus-goers--could be very important to Dick Gephardt. Speaking of maneuvering and strategizing, the Daily Kos has analysis today on what the five viable candidates want to achieve on Monday night. Nobody does this sort of thing better than Kos.
