Wow - first Rasmussen and now Reuters/Zogby.
For me polls only signify trends... it is too imperfect of a science to rely on the numbers as if they are statistically accurate. Still, in this instance looking at the polls it cannot be denied that Barack Obama got smoked this past month.
Oh - and some of the more reliable elements of the media deep throats Barack Obama after the speech, just as I predicted. We all know the media has generally handled Barack Obama like an innocent child rather than a presidential candidate, but comparing him to JFK could have an unintended irony in the sense that JFK was a president whose fame largely rests on a cult of personality rather than tangible accomplishments. Nobody, not even Reagan, brought our country closer to nuclear war than JFK and his brother did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But hey, let the comparisons fly. This article was borderline embarrassing in its gushing approval.
This is in the minority, however. I think many of you may be interested in know that most of what I've read today - and that includes several traditionally liberal editorials and news magazines like Newsweek - that while they generally thought it was a good (even great) speech the enthusiasm is tempered. Its as if they are holding their breath to see what happens, which I suppose is a rare shot of pragmatism in the media.
I've read in the LA Times today a writer highlighting a blatant contradiction in what Obama has said concerning his former pastor - he had previously stated that he never personally heard inflammatory stuff while "sitting in the pews," but during his speech he directly admits that he's heard the negative stuff in person. If Hillary were smart she'd seize on that. Honestly, if the Clintons can't find a way to seize momentum here, then she'll never find a way to seize momentum.
Maureen Dowd, a woman who is serially annoying, wrote what I consider a short but devastating piece.
She writes,
"The candidate may have staunched the bleeding, but he did not heal the wounds. His naïve and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the Rev. Wright's anti-American, anti-white and pro-Farrakhan sentiments - echoing his naïve and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the ramifications of his friendship with sleazy fund-raiser Tony Rezko - will not be forgotten because of one unforgettable speech."
If Maureen Dowd can see it and writes about it, then I'm afraid for Obama's chance at sweeping this episode under the rug and moving on without skepticism heading his way.
I'm even more astounded by my having read groups of Democrats commenting on LA Times articles, and I swear if I'm lying I'm dying on this one... actually agree with Rush Limbaugh when he highlighted that we do not live in the 50's and 60's anymore and that Barack Obama can't credibly pretend as if we still live in those times... and neither can a 20-year confidante, even if he lived through that divisive, incredibly wrong and racially heated time.
They also both agree, apparently, that Obama is missing the distinction between the private fears in his grandmother's mind of black guys as she walks down the street and the quite public and radical anti-american, anti-white rhetoric of his former pastor. There is also an assumption of large scale ignorance concerning those not in absolute blind love of Obama regarding how black churches conduct their sermons that nobody really buys when looking at the example that has been provided.
That is a very good point - you cannot excuse suggestions that the government created AIDS to kill blacks or that we live in the US of KKKA today by saying that it was because of how he was treated yesterday, because in the end its not justifiable under any conditions. I'm not sure people are going to buy it, and Obama and the media are wondering about that exact same thing. People are still going to wonder about why he stuck with such an obvious America hater for 20 years - I can't see one element in his speech that would persuade the people that his critics are wrong about the issue of how he exercises his judgment. Personally, I think this is one of the reasons why the media isn't jumping for joy over the speech.
I haven't read any conservative punditry yet (I do have to work today...) but you can imagine how that is leaning. I found out about the Rush stuff from the article itself, although if anybody wants to get Rush's opinion on the matter in his own words (highly unlikely here) you can visit his site and read the transcripts.
I am not sure that the criticisms about his judgment or character are going to change much, and if you look at the polls Obama hasn't just flatlined but has fallen backwards.
I think all of this is immaterial to his suitability as a potential president. In the end he's going to have to defend his character while trying to sell America on his lack of experience, as well as the pursuit of tax hikes and punitive measures for businesses during a recession, spending increases and expanded government... aka classic liberalism. Still though, it continues.
In the Boston Globe today I read an article that dared to mention the seemingly superficial nature of his candidacy and that supporters hoped that this speech would add gravitas. The irony in the Globe article is that if Obama's candidacy is indeed superficial, the media can take a huge chunk of the blame for having facilitated it all this time. Based on what his own supporters say, I'm not sure. Here is an example -
"To say that the man is outlining a great opportunity in the history of our age is recognizing the truth about this moment charged with so much potential - so much possibility - that we can move mountains if we come together to embrace our diversity as the cause for our strength. To say that he is the most eloquent orator of our time is stating the obvious. I hope and I pray, from my heart of hearts, that he becomes president of this great land, and leads it to the greatness that is ours to loose."
This is nonsense, guys, and people that do not support Barack Obama are lampooning it all - even Democrats. Its simply not good enough when weighing who should be the most powerful politician on earth.
Exploring our limitless potential because of our diversity, embracing each other, and hoping for the ubiquitous but yet-to-be-defined-for-the-American-public-in-a-major-speech change isn't going to solve our deepening economic problems, bring a conclusion to the Iraq war in a way that we can all support or stabilize the middle class. This is why when he says he is a unifier I suspect that he is not - I think we all agree that we should come together and have more honest discussions about things, but the logical conclusion of that agreement IS NOT the establishment of a liberal, socialist style governmental scheme.
Its too bad - I admire his ability to move people with words. Still though, it is what he doesn't say that interests me and will interest the rest of us when the formalities are over and the real campaign begins.
I saw videos of that machine when the article came out in the Times. Holy hell. A regular cup of coffee never looked so cool. All that pomp and circumstance over Starbucks cappuccino crap and its explosion in popularity have been obnoxious. It is tough to find a place that makes a good cup of coffee because everyone orders foamy drinks like milkshakes. Maybe with more whiz bang simple coffee can be complicated enough to appeal to the masses.
My understanding is that the kiosk is notorious for long waits with little/no seating, and NYers are impatient even with short waits. Since the wait was for something relatively frivolous I can picture H-down in my head, like a grenade about to explode!
Too funny.
(e:twisted) - and this is a sincere compliment to your city - most NYers I've talked to about SF are generally dismissive of the SF/NY comparisons. Honestly so am I - if I'm comparing NY versus SF its no comparison... in my mind SF wins in a landslide for a lot of excellent reasons that I won't go into now. Suffice it to say that if I had to choose, between SF and NY there is no choice really. I think NY is a shithole and I'd never actually live there, but I'm biased.
I took (e:Hodown) to the kiosk in Hayes Valley (3 blocks from my house) but she was not impressed. It probably didn't help that the barista felt compelled to find just the right music to accompany the occasion, slowing down the progress of the line at a peak, but critical, hour. Plus, New Yorkers are notoriously difficult to impress, haha.
(e:jenks) - Well yeah, Bodum makes one with a similar principle, but its not nearly the same or as cool as a professional $20k siphon coffee bar thats unique like this one.
I probably should have mentioned that you can actually buy a consumer-grade item that works essentially with the same principle, but you'll never get a consistent cup with the Bodum like you will with a professional setup. In the end they are not one in the same (quality of craftsmanship, halogen power, filtration system, etc.) so generally, as is anything else, if you are looking for a siphon coffee pot you should not convince yourself that your $69 Bodum will make an identical cup to what you'll get at Blue Bottle because it will not be true.
Personally I would never own a siphon coffee pot because the strongest benefit in using it comes from specific beans... you will get no revelations from using Spot's beans I'm afraid, and its benefit for me is outweighed by its limited personal use. I still think the drip cone or a french press is preferable for my own drinking habits at home. But, when it comes to a professional siphon bar that only one cafe in the US owns and will likely own for years - yeah, I'm interested!
(e:jbeatty) - I don't know what it costs but I'd pay it. They are certainly oddballs but they understand coffee better than most people - they bother because they know the difference are the sort of crazy and obsessive people that I trust when it comes to food and drink items. Generally speaking their coffee is more expensive than most places - lattes spring upwards of $6. The cafe wasn't quite open for operation when I was there, otherwise I could have given you a first-hand review from the siphon bar! I want to go back this summer... if I get the chance I will definitely be stopping by to drink the siphon coffee and buy beans.
Apparently that whirlpool technique is tough to get exactly right! I'm not going to train like the Karate Kid to brew coffee - I'll leave that one to the pros. =D
I have to wonder what a cup of that costs. This guy in the article is a little bit of an oddball. The fact that he practiced stirring for months with plain water and does a five minute warm-up everyday makes me chuckle. But I guess his schtick is working because I would try his coffee.
Josh's eurotrash socialist coffee was weird to me at first, but when you get the fresh Bella Donovan in the mail, it smells heavenly. Amazing.
Or there's Bodum's "Santos" siphon coffee maker for $69. ;)
:::link:::