Thursday, March 20, 2008

Reflections: Quo Vadis?

Regardless of what any of us thought of THE SPEECH, on the morning of this first day of springtime in America, the polls show clearly that it did Obama more harm than good. America wanted the Rev. Wright under the bus. America did not want White Granny under the bus.

That's the beautiful thing about America (outside of her spacious skies and amber waves of grain, I mean)--her stability! Her inertia! It's Baseball, White Granny, and Chevrolet, Ũber Alles, forever! (Actually, Chevy ain't doin' that good. Better stick Apple Pie back in there.)

It is hard to imagine that there will ever be an African American more talented, more intelligent, more personally attractive, or better positioned to make America's case to the rest of the world, than is Barack Obama. Nonetheless, my friends (oops, I just threw up a little in mouth there!), Barack Obama has proven TO BE NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.

So, really--Quo vadis?


William R. Barker said...

What are you rambling about, Rob...? (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)

What polls? Polls based on WHAT? Polls of WHOM?

Unless you're talking polling only of people who actually saw/heard/read "The Speech" there's no connection to be made.

Anyway... if you have any specifics to cite... by all means. As always, I'm ready to be convinced. (*WINK*)


Rodak said...

Heeeeere's Gallup!

William R. Barker said...


Perhaps it's simply that you have no formal training in statistical methodology/polling, but for whatever reason you seem to miss the point of my original comment/question.

Here... let me stick to something an English major (*GRIN*) might be able to follow:

YOU wrote... "the polls show clearly that it did Obama more harm than good."

Now by "it" you clearly meant the speech - correct?

Well... in contrast to what YOU wrote, here's what Gallup found:

"The initial indications are that the speech has not halted Clinton's gaining momentum, as she led by a similar margin in Tuesday night's polling as compared to Monday night's polling."

Do you see the difference? Do you see the lack of any claim of causality between the speech and the stats?

Rob, what the polling actually indicates is that in all probability the Wright controversy itself has hurt Obama and benefited Hillary, but as for "The Speech," all that's being indicated is that it has not yet turned things around for Obama.


I'm not nit-picking, Rob - please believe me. I'm pointing out a real difference between what you originally wrote and what the polling (this particular polling at least) is showing.

Basically, my guess is that FAR more people have heard the reporting (not favorable towards Obama) concerning the Wright controversy as opposed to the much smaller number of people who saw/heard/read "The Speech."

As I inferred in my original remarks, the type of polling data which WOULD shed light upon how the speech was received would be polling of only people who saw/heard/read "The Speech."

See what I'm saying...???


Rodak said...

Okay, if you want to be a nit-picker, I am forced to concede your point. My language was sloppy there. But--my perception that the speech has done him more harm than good is based on the ancedotal observations of radio talk show hosts, and cable pundits, as to what their callers and e-mails are indicating. It's not scientific, in the least--it's a gut feeling on my part that Reagan Democrats and swing voters are gone forever for Obama, to the extent that he ever had them. I hope that I'm wrong, but I'm very pessimistic about what the polls will be showing at convention time.

Rodak said...

I also agree, Bill, that far more people have heard the reporting about the speech than actually heard the speech. Therefore, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty, et al., are able to pick out the most questionable elements of the speech and harp on them, hour on end. It would seem that a large percentage of the people who actually heard the speech were moved by it. But those who are hearing about it second-hand from Obama's enemies are hearing only that he didn't disavow the "racist, America-hating" preacher. So, overall, I still maintain that the speech will have done him more harm than good, when all is said and done. Certainly polls are indicating that it hasn't helped him overcome the Wright constroversy.

Anthony said...

Michael Steele or JC Watts.

In any event., I am still convinced that Obama is our next president. But as you pointed out on my blog, I am surrounded by a bunch of liberal yuppies so my view on what is really happening in the election is skewed.

Jindal/Watts 2012!

Rodak said...

Both Steele and Watts have been around for a long time, and nobody has even tapped them for Veep.
I think that Obama is unique, and the most talented Gen-X politician, of any color, out there. Steele and Watts don't even begin to compare to him.

An Interested Party said...

Michael Steele, eh? I wonder...if he ran for national office, would he try to confuse people into voting for him, like he did two years ago in his Maryland Senatorial race...

Civis said...

What about Alan Keyes? I guess since he's a conservative, he would be one of those "house niggers." Or how does a person become a "house nigger"?

Rodak said...

What about Alan Keyes?

What about him? He's a joke. He's too bizarre to even categorize.

Civis said...

What about my other question?

Rodak said...

I believe that the issue among slaves was that the House Negro was rewarded by massa with his privileged position for being the most obedient, the most compliant, and for kissing the most white butt.

Civis said...


I think attitudes like yours and the "house negro" reference are no help heal racial wonds or end strife. In fact, I think that they tend to make things worse. I know you were only trying to be cute, but you might think for a while about your attitudes.

Rodak said...

I'm not trying to be cute. I'm dead serious. Obama is a mensch, unlike most other politicians, black and/or white. If telling it like it is, rather than pandering, makes him "not ready for prime time"--so be it.

Civis said...

If it was race-neutral why use the "house negro" reference? I have no problem with you saying he has character and does not cow tow. That's not my problem. It's the allusions you employ. All I'm saying is think about the big picture.

Rodak said...

Who's saying it was race-neutral? It very definitely was not race-neutral. As I said, in calling his grandmother a "typical white person" he is holding up a mirror to white people that no other serious presidential candidate has ever held up before.

Civis said...

I'm not going to quibble with you. I would ask that you give what I'm saying some thought. That's all.

Rodak said...

If you were asked to advise me on how to amend my remarks, how would you advise me to amend them? What should I have said?