Comments On Comments

A few responses to recent comments:

Commenter Jenny asks, with regards to my statement that ABC did a remarkably good job with their 'the story so far' episode of Lost,

Although, it almost makes me think, "Why the hell did that take 48 (or however many) hours to tell in the first place?"

I think this is totally the wrong question to ask. The right question, instead, is 'how do they take a story, which can be so easily summarized in an hour, and stretch it out to 70-some hours so far, while keeping it completely fascinating?'

I was talking about this with one of my former coworkers today, who also happens to own Simon's best doggy friend, while the two of them were attempting to set land-speed records for circumnavigating the dog park. And, really, what's so impressive about the show is the way that almost every revelation raises at least as many questions as it answers.

Presumably, at some point, Abrams and co. will have to start wrapping up plotlines, so that the show has some sort of ending. But, clearly, they don't think that we're at that point yet, as even the revelations this week about the team searching the island from the boat leave me entirely mystified about what the hell is going on, but anxiously awaiting next week's revelations nonetheless.

Also, Jenny respectfully disagrees with me about the quality of Obama's response to the final State of the Union Address of the Bush Administration, saying

I felt it was very generic and it was a lot of repackaged material from previous speeches

As someone who actually stops on C-SPAN when Barack is giving his stump speech, I definitely agree with the statement. It was generic, and there wasn't anything new in it.

But, look. At this point, he's been speaking for over a year. He's said, literally, everything there is that he can say, unless he starts speaking in tongues on the stump or something like that.

The YouTube was not intended for political junkies; they are the ones reading white papers (or, even more remarkably, preparing detailed summaries of the white papers of multiple candidates on an array of issues). Instead, the intended audience was people for whom the State of the Union might be one of the few ways they engage with the political process all year. For those sorts of people, you don't get deep in the weeds with your specific arguments in favor of cap-and-trade and against a carbon tax, especially not in a 5-minute video. And it's totally fine to re-use the lines from your stump speech that you think have the best resonance.

Likewise, while watching Hilary's interview with Katie Couric on 60 minutes tonight, I thought she did a great job, although I didn't actually learn anything I hadn't heard before in the campaign. But, for those in Texas and Ohio who are just tuning in for the first time, it was a very nice introduction to who Hilary is, and what she stands for, as a candidate.

Oh, and to Daniel and LT: Fuck You and your ice-melting temperatures.