Massive Obama waterfront rally: Largest in Oregon history
As Obama said when he first took the stage, wow.
With a little more than 48 hours to go until Oregon's primary, the Oregon Obama campaign held a picture perfect rally this afternoon at McCall Waterfront Park attracting the largest crowd of the campaign yet. On hand were some of the tens of thousands of young voters, Republicans, Independents and others Obama's bottom-up campaign has drawn into the political process. Conservative estimates put the attendance at 75,000 strong.
From NBC:
Per the Obama campaign, 75,000 people (60,000 in the gates and 15,000 outside of them) turned out in Portland to hear Obama speak there this afternoon -- making it the largest Obama crowd to date.Duane Bray, the battalion chief with Portland Fire and Rescue, validated that crowd estimate, the campaign says.
*** UPDATE *** Here's the dispatch from NBC/NJ's Athena Jones... Some 75,000 people flocked to Portland’s waterfront Sunday to watch Barack Obama speak, making it the biggest rally the campaign has held to date. Thousands stood on the lawn, dozens watched from boats and from the bridge stretching across the Willamette River. A few kayakers held their paddles and tried to keep their kayaks straight as they watched the candidate, who stood on a makeshift platform.
Obama hailed Clinton as a “formidable candidate," saying she "has been smart and tough and determined and she has worked as hard as she can and she has run an extraordinary campaign."
Were you there? What did you think?
Discuss.
[Update: This YouTube clip below gives you a decent sense of the crowd.]
|
May 18, 2008 |
Charlie Burr | Comments (152 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Deward Bowles | May 18, 2008 6:18:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsKQOFAbcW0
Hows that for unity 75,000.
Astounding. I can't think of a politician that draws these kinds of crowds.
Obama in 08
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 18, 2008 6:35:37 PM
it was cool to have an hour of The Decemberists to kick things off, i gotta say that. great to sde his family, too, although my hope that Michelle would speak went unanswered. and while it was standard stump speech, the context was everything: huge crowd, gorgeous day, a great candidate and the state that in 2 days will secure the nomination for Barack Obama. for the first time in my life, the first time in 9 presidential elections, i have finally got to vote for a candidate who truly excited me (that would have been even more true for Dean in 2004, but alas).
this was the topper for this great campaign. it's not the most exciting event i've ever attended, but it is special and i'll remember that i was here for years to come.
i was glad to share it with 75,000 of my good friends.
Posted by: Oregonian37 | May 18, 2008 6:36:12 PM
I was in the sardine can in front of the stage.:)
This is the first rally like this I've ever attended. I think I was walking around with my mouth hanging open as I was leaving, realizing how immense the crowd really was. I'm glad I picked a good one to go to for the first!
Posted by: James X. | May 18, 2008 6:38:22 PM
Sorry if my first post sounded a little negative, I just really wanted people to know how amazing that crowd was!
Posted by: James X. | May 18, 2008 6:41:31 PM
[CB: Keep em coming. I saw this one before the post went live; the problem is it also comes up as a thumbnail shot when I attach it via TypePad. The shot I have up there now is slightly better because it's pulled Flickr, not another Web site.]
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 18, 2008 6:49:10 PM
I heard the crowd applauding when Obama spoke about Clinton. However, a cynical part of me still expects some of the more inflamed bits of the pro-Clinton, anti-Obama blogosphere to spin this as another Obama attack.
Posted by: Kevin | May 18, 2008 6:55:51 PM
Not at all, James. We're mostly an Obama crowd here and we understood what you were saying and why.
:-)
Posted by: DH | May 18, 2008 6:59:41 PM
A-M-A-Z-I-N-G !!! Took the whole family. Parked 2 blocks up from OMSI at 12:00. Walked across the Hawthorne and had to walk in a maze like fashion up past PSU. Never made it in. Had to stop on Naito at 3:00 ish and heard most of the speech. Great day. Great people. Had to giggle a little bit when I heard there was a handful of people protesting Obama calling the reporter "sweetie". The pics posted above were fantastic to look at. Hard to have perspective of the scene when you are in the thick of the crowd.
After dinner, I'll dial more numbers for Obama !
Posted by: Jefferson Smith | May 18, 2008 7:05:38 PM
Historic. My advice for the general: do stadium shows -- baseball and football arenas. Have some lead time, and go really big.
Set a goal of having 3,000,000+ people seeing Obama live. That's doable...it's a bit over 65,000/State. (Of course, it'd actually require 200,000+ in some states.)
Why do this? Sorta obvious maybe, but here're four reasons:
1. Plays to strength.: Obama can daw crowds, and crowds leave with more energy than they had when they arrived. That's an asset to leverage and maximize.
2. Wow factor.: Even nonbelievers have to say "wow" when record setting rallies roll through town. And that gets press, and its gets people talking. And friends/neighbors talking to friends/neighbors is the most persuasive politicking there is.
3. Capacity growth: the volunteer and donor capacity it adds would be significant. And the volunteers leveraged to execute the events would also make the pie higher.
4. History: Done right, this could mean that at the end of the campaign, ~1% of the US population will have seen Obama live. That's a lot of "I remember..."
Logistical Questions:
-- What sorta places? Mega where possible. Huge otherwise. Bg where necessary. For example, Michigan: Mega is The Big House in Ann Arbor (huge: 110,000+ -- where the Wolverines play tackle football). Huge is Tiger Stadium (50,000, where the Tigers used to play baseball). Big is the Palace at Auburn Hills (where the Pistons play: 22,000+)
-- Price and Cost? Still always free to attend? (Bonus thought: Maybe have a suggested donation of $1 to $5 -- could raise $2-10 million...not determinative, but still maybe helpful...and would pay for the events.)
-- Access? Some ownership group might not say yes, but sufficient venues could be found.
-- Security? Probably easier to keep secure in a stadium than on a waterfront.
This campaign is historic. Let's etch the marble a bit deeper.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | May 18, 2008 7:09:33 PM
Put another way...
McCall Waterfront Park was the 7th largest city in Oregon today.
Posted by: naschkatzehussein | May 18, 2008 7:11:58 PM
Jealous as all get out here in Bend. I hope Portland started something that will happen in big cities all over the country after Labor Day. Love you guys! What a response from Oregon to the racism of West Virginia. That's the significance of this thing, I think.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | May 18, 2008 7:19:50 PM
This Eugenean (moi) got that, another video and a link to great slideshow at OregonLive at American Street.
Good going up there, folks. Not as fun as the Blues Festival, but pretty amazing.
Posted by: Chris #12 | May 18, 2008 7:21:11 PM
A truly impressive crowd, but I was quite disappointed to hear Obama endorse Bush's pre-emptive war policy. Hopefully someone else can provide the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of "I am willing to attack anyone who WOULD do us harm." The Bush administration has set a dangerous precedent, and Obama seems to be pledging more of the same. Other than that, it seemed like a good speech--he said good things on trade, labor, and civil liberties. But the end of the speech, he seemed to be a little off his game. It's too bad about his hawkish comments, because I almost became a believer. But I think he lost my vote.
Posted by: Larry | May 18, 2008 7:27:03 PM
Yes, Portland showed those bigots in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio a thing or two. Portland is the best because we love Obama, and we are tolerant and progressive. Portland is irrelevant no more. Portland rocks!
Posted by: Gil Johnson | May 18, 2008 7:54:45 PM
What's with Obama being on time? Having sweltered for several hours through the Kerry rally in 2004 an heard that Obama was usually late for these rallies, I started biking across the Hawthorne Bridge around 3:30, an hour after the time posted in the media. And, of course, met hordes of people coming from the rally.
Probably wouldn't have gotten close, anyway, though I'm pretty good at finagling my way up front.
Oh well, I hope he comes back in the fall.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 18, 2008 8:21:01 PM
Took my daughter who doesn't like crowds to a play at Winningstad Theater (across from Schnitz). Was astonished, at 1:45, to find the line for admission to the rally stretched all the way west from the Waterfront to SW 9th (Park Blocks) then turned south for blocks and blocks more. Line was more or less 4 abreast, width of sidewalk.
Chris #12, there is a distinction between pre-emptive war, which is permitted under international law, and "preventive war," which is what Bush originally called what he did.
Pre-emptive war is quite narrowly defined and refers to response to an imminent threat of attack, e.g. massing of troops on a border, full-scale mobilization etc.
Bush doctine was war to prevent a country that is not a threat from becoming one. In essence this could justify any aggression. Given the history of the U.S. since 1898, any country in the world could justify attacking us on this basis, because every country in the world has a legitimate concern that the U.S. might decide to attack them at some point.
After the initial phase, Bush has tried to obscure this distinction and give the color of legitimate (under international law) defensive pre-emptive war to his aggression.
It does sound like Obama was vague about that. It is worrisome in the sense that many Democrats in effect accepted the "preventive war" theory by giving Bush his war powers, although possibly without really thought it through in those terms. But Obama's foreign policy and military people are not neocons, coming rather from the self-annointed "realist" school, & included folks like Zbigniew Brzezinski, who explicitly opposed the Iraq invasion on the grounds that its "justifications" could be applied by other countries to any other aggression.
I'm not holding up Brzezinski as an ideal, but Bush's war was made possible by a network of securocrats from Cheney and Rumsfeld on down, and Obama simply hasn't surrounded himself with people likely to do what you fear.
Posted by: James X. | May 18, 2008 8:34:14 PM
Chris, he's used that formulation since at least New Hampshire, and the phrase is usually "I won't hesitate to strike against those who would do us harm." He chooses "would" rather than "will," which indicates a condition. Given his consistent position on Iraq, I would believe that condition is "were that to occur" rather than "were that a theoretical possibility."
Posted by: James X. | May 18, 2008 8:40:01 PM
Thanks to Chris Lowe for saying something I was going to try to say to Chris #12, but didn't have the words for. There's a third condition, that of preemption as it has historically been defined, which is justifiable. But it's very different from what Bush argues it to be.
Posted by: David Dorn | May 18, 2008 8:46:47 PM
Dear Barack Obama:
Thank you so much for entering this presidential race at the time we needed you the most. You have given me hope when I was on the verge of giving up. I proudly cast my vote for you and personally dropped my ballot in a drop box to be sure it would count. I made my way to Waterfront Park today to show my support. I followed the crowds a full 3/4 mile away from the stage where you would make your speech and took my place in line. I stood in the hot sun and waited. The line seemed to go on forever, snakeing North, South, East & West like a parade route through the city. When I finally arrived at the park I was relieved to smell the grass and feel the cool breeze coming from the river. I smiled as I looked around and saw bright, hopeful faces. Then a volunteer from your campaign approached me and said in a cold voice "I'm confiscating your sign". What? Are you serious?? The sign was made by my wife (who is a talented graphic designer). It had a background of the state of Oregon in dark green. The letter "O" was done in yellow and was the shape of the Oregon Ducks "O". That was followed by white "bama". "All it says is Obama", I protested. "How is that offensive or objectionable?" I'm sure he thought his reply was funny, but I found it infuriating. "Because I'm a Beaver fan" he said, as he took my sign. Wow I am so surprised that I would be treated that way after standing in line for so long. I geuss free speech really is dead and even your campaign is willing to squelch any voice that has not been prescreened and preapproved. How sad.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 18, 2008 9:00:16 PM
Charlie, I updated your post with a full-size photo that seems to do the crowd justice. Holy cow.
Posted by: Perspective | May 18, 2008 9:06:52 PM
Come on guys. A little perspective here. George W. Bush drew larger crowds than 75k, albiet in the form of protestors when he visit Portland. Also, weren't the anti-war protests drawing crowds well over 120k?
The cult of anti-war protestors is greater than the cult of the presidency.
Just saying.
Posted by: John F. Bradach, Sr. | May 18, 2008 9:07:03 PM
OBAMARAMA!!!!
I stayed at the gate to watch the crowd, as it exited the Portland Waterfront Park. At the end, slowly, moved hundreds of smiling people on crutches, in wheelchairs and on scooters, who despite a very hot day, long lines, and infirmities of age, disease and injury, had come and seen a man of destiny, and history in the making.
Posted by: John F. Bradach, Sr. | May 18, 2008 9:07:10 PM
OBAMARAMA!!!!
I stayed at the gate to watch the crowd, as it exited the Portland Waterfront Park. At the end, slowly, moved hundreds of smiling people on crutches, in wheelchairs and on scooters, who despite a very hot day, long lines, and infirmities of age, disease and injury, had come and seen a man of destiny, and history in the making.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 18, 2008 9:10:59 PM
This was the second Obama event I missed, and this time because of a prior conflict. For days in anticipation, I've been wondering if it was going to match Kerry's crowd in '04, which was, I believe, the largest crowd to see him that year. Such a cool thing that Oregonians are so into politics.
And what's really amazing is that Kerry came in August, after the convention, as the general election candidate. Obama's still in the primary. Kick ass.
Posted by: NEPDXGal | May 18, 2008 9:17:55 PM
Mr. Dorn,
They could have & should have explained it nicer to you. The secret service is required to take those signs. A sign can hide weapons. I know we all had to get in "airport style" but they have their security regulations, & other procedures. They handed out signs after they got the "all clear".
I hope that the volunteer doesn't sway you for good. It sounds like a lot of heart went into your sign, & I think it would have been awesome to see.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 18, 2008 9:22:14 PM
the flip-side of Jefferson's "go big" program is one he knows very well, which is person-to-person. the reason Obama's drawing power does more than attract wow-worthy croweds is because many of those going "wow" are also going door-to-door and phone banking. Obama's at this point of having the nomination almost wrapped up (stating it that way out of respect for the Clintonites who have not conceded anything) because he not only can draw the big crowds but because his supporters are willing to do the grunt work of political campaigns.
if they get even 1% of those attending to volunteer Monday & Tuesday, that'll be an amazing influx of volunteers. the campaign power of drawing power.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 18, 2008 9:37:31 PM
No, there were never that many protestors when George Bush showed up. Seriously -- the Secret Service wouldn't land the plane if there 10% of that many protestors.
As for anti-war rallies... no, there was never an anti-war rally with 75,000 people.
I'm sure there have been larger crowds in Oregon, but not for a political rally.
Posted by: Chris #12 | May 18, 2008 9:38:39 PM
Chris Lowe and others: thanks for the clarifications on pre-emptive vs. preventive war. But am still very uncomfortable with Obama's language. It's vague. "Would" could mean all kinds of things, and he should be more specific. Does anyone have more specifics on this? What would justify an attack by an Obama administration? I assume crappy intelligence on WMD's would not qualify, but hasn't he made some pretty serious threats against Iran?
Anyway, I voted for the the most progressive candidate (Obama) on my primary ballot. I will do the same in November--which probably means I'll be voting for someone else.
And perspective--I believe the anti-Bush crowds were 5,000 tops, and the biggest peace march was around 40,000. The May Day march in 2006 was also around 40,000. I guess we can still say that the biggest marches in Portland were against the war and for immigrants' rights.
Posted by: Red | May 18, 2008 9:46:07 PM
So...65,000 to 75,000 starry-eyed Obamamaniacs heard nothing but the " Hope and Change " rhetoric.... but again Sen. Obama has not accomplished anything in his short three and half years in DC.... Keep drinking the Kool-ade....
Posted by: John F. Bradach, Sr. | May 18, 2008 9:48:35 PM
According to Wikipedia:
"***The highest attendance at Autzen was 59,379 on November 3, 2007, when the Ducks beat the Arizona State Sun Devils 35-23. This also set the record for attendance for a single event in the state of Oregon."
I think there are Rose Festival Parade crowds that are much larger, but those are different animals.
Today's Waterfront Bowl Rally was BIG!!!
Posted by: orexpat | May 18, 2008 9:49:07 PM
Chris#12,
I can respect a principled position. However we all saw the outcome that principled people who chose to vote for Nader brought us. You comfortable with that?
And about that rally- awesome!
Posted by: William Neuhauser | May 18, 2008 9:54:12 PM
Personal photos from the rally here.
Posted by: David Dorn | May 18, 2008 9:54:29 PM
Red- I'm geussing you are a Hillary supporter or a Mccain supporter. Either way, you are the one drinking Kool-ade if you think the MCCain/Clinton "gas tax holiday" is going to solve anything!
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | May 18, 2008 10:04:50 PM
a video of his entire speech is available here, though it's a bit tiny.
Posted by: DanOregon | May 18, 2008 10:22:55 PM
Largest gathering for a political campaign since.....when?
Parked across the river, immediately regretted not bringing my canoe, saw the lawn while crossing the river and thought, not bad. Get to foot of bridge and just kept following the line, following the line, following the line, until I got to the end up in the Park blocks near PSU. I figured, no way am I getting close. But it wasn't bad because there was shade and the line kept moving and the people I was around were very nice. I figured at the very least, I'd have a story to tell. The line kept moving, shook Macpherson's hand, shook Novick's hand and began hearing Obama's speech from a few blocks away. Gradually got close enough to hear clearly and moved south and worked my way around the crowd where I could see a speck moving arms on the stage from my spot just in front of the far treeline. Good enough for me.
Posted by: DanOregon | May 18, 2008 10:31:33 PM
The Trailblazers victory rally in 1977 drew an estimated 250,000 to Portland.
Posted by: Chris #12 | May 18, 2008 10:37:38 PM
So, orexpat, are you saying that I should vote with no principles?
Look, I'm going to vote for the most progressive candidates. Blame me all you want, but that's how I'm voting. Me, I lay the blame at the Democratic Party for moving to the right for the last few decades and failing to nominate candidates worthy of my vote.
Unless Obama pledges to have a much less hawkish foreign policy, he won't get my vote in the general.
And seriously, that whole blaming Nader thing is so boring...
Posted by: Rose Wilde | May 18, 2008 10:42:13 PM
The other great thing about "going big" is the emotional boost of shared passion. It helps if you are watching an inspirational speaker, but even a so-so football team can move crowds to epiphany if the music/cheerleading/marching band had got "it" right.
I read a little about ritual in my cultural anthropology classes back in the 90s and I remember studies about how mass rituals (like football games or political rallies, not just "religion") can have a measurable physical and emotional effect on people -- something far beyond what the same person would experience if watching the same events, but all alone. If everyone around us is screaming with delight, most of us actually feel delighted (brain research now has documented mirror neurons, which make our brains fire the same neurons as the person we are observing-- even though we are just watching them jump for joy, we feel their joy -- spooky, but cool!).
As for the personal touch, it just takes empowering and supporting more smart, personable leaders. There are tons of likable, fun, and smart people out there who rub off a little of the "obama" feeling, then transfer it to the next level of volunteers. Plus, it only takes a minute for Obama to pose for a photo, make eye contact, and say something that sounds inspirational (in the context).
So, by all means, use the Billy Graham playbook (and he wasn't the first, I'm sure). Just remember to work on media reform and civic education, so our masses have a chance to think and analyze once the rallies are over.
Posted by: orexpat | May 18, 2008 10:58:30 PM
"That whole blaming Nader thing is getting so boring."
Billions of dollars wasted, thousands of lives lost, eight years squandered.
Yep. Reality is boring but oh so real.
Posted by: Chris #12 | May 18, 2008 11:02:00 PM
One more thing about Obama's fuzzy language: "I won't hesitate to strike against those who would do us harm" could have been used to justify attacking Iraq in 2003.
Posted by: Snarkmatic 9000 | May 18, 2008 11:10:16 PM
And seriously, that whole blaming Nader thing is so boring...
Not to any families with sons or daughters serving in Iraq it's not. Why don't you call one of them up and see if you can comfort them with your pristine principles?
Posted by: James X. | May 18, 2008 11:10:54 PM
#12, of course no one can tell you what to do, but I would suggest that electing the most progressive candidate possible is more productive than voting for the most progressive candidate possible, and while sometimes that person is different candidate, that person is not nearly as different as the candidate who would be elected otherwise. As for me, I'm not just satisfied with Obama, I'm excited about him. And as for that line in Obama's speech, I think of Obama's campaign rallies as delivering the flavor of his message. For the nutritional facts, consider these sources:
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
Obama also cautioned against a US intervention in Iran, saying he was skeptical of reports by the Bush administration that Iran is helping to supply weapons to insurgents in Iraq."I don't doubt that there are some weapons coming over from Iran into Iraq. I have no doubt Iran has a history of sponsoring terrorism and doing mischief," Obama said. But "I am less persuaded by what we're seeing over the last couple of weeks, and that is that the intervention of Iran into Iraq somehow justifies what seems to be a mounting case for intervention or even forays into Iran," he said, drawing applause.
KROFT: Would you talk to Iran or Syria?OBAMA: Yes. I think that the notion that this administration has -- that not talking to our enemies is effective punishment -- is wrong. It flies in the face of our experiences during the Cold War. Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it's worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there areas of common interest. And most importantly, those conversations allow the possibility that our ideas and our values gain greater exposure in these countries. The fact of the matter is that Iran currently is governed by an oppressive regime, one that I think is a threat to the region and to our allies, but there are a lot of people in Iran who potentially would like to be part of this broader community of nations. For us not to be in a conversation with them doesn't make sense. Now I don't think that that conversation should be conditioned on our accepting their support of terrorism or their building nuclear capacity and potentially sparking an arms race in the Middle East, any more than our conversations with the Kremlin presumed that we approved of their aggression around the world. You know, we can have a robust strategy of blocking and containing aggressive actions by hostile or rogue states, but still open up the possibility that over time those relationships may evolve and they may change. And there may be opportunities for us to resolve some of our differences, not all of them, but some of them in a constructive way.
KROFT: Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
OBAMA: I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we've displayed thus far. And I think this is an example of where our blundering in Iraq has cost us dearly. Iran's the big winner from the Iraq War. They have gained immeasurable strength in the Middle East, and because of the strains that it's placed on our alliances and our leverage with other countries around the world, it's made it more difficult for us to be able to mobilize international pressure to get them to stand down from what I believe is a process of developing nuclear weapons.
What I take away from this is that Obama is highly unlikely to start any wars unless some dictator's finger is an inch a way from a big red button. And he'll work his ass off to keep that finger from ever being lifted.
Posted by: Katy | May 18, 2008 11:15:13 PM
Okay, so it looks like I'm just gonna go ahead and post this on every thread on bo today (sorry). To me I guess it's just too important for anyone to miss.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/index.html
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | May 18, 2008 11:16:59 PM
David Dorn, sorry about your sign.
But I am pretty sure it was security purposes. The announcements for Obama events usuallly say "no signs", that's how it was in Medford. It helps the secret service have a better view of the crowd.
Thanks for your understanding.
Posted by: Sargent | May 18, 2008 11:20:56 PM
A few kayakers held their paddles and tried to keep their kayaks straight as they watched the candidate, who stood on a makeshift platform.
My fella and I were there in kayaks. Not only were we trying to keep them straight, but we had to keep backing up because the current was pushing us toward the sheriff's deputies' boat. It was awesome to watch the rally from the river, and the crowd was as amazing a sight as the speaker. We could see which applause lines got the most energetic response -- alternative energy, art and music in schools, etc. It felt like a historic day.
Posted by: Reality Check | May 18, 2008 11:22:16 PM
What makes you think that a Democrat would not have bowed to pressure and invaded Iraq?
Every single Democrat in the Senate and more than half of them in the House supported the war resolution, and there is not a single Democratic leader in either branch of congress, or in the race for the White House, who is seriously talking about cutting America's defense budget, which accounts for half of total global military spending and is bankrupting this country.
And, lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA, NAFTA, GATT, and WTO into law.
It's all well and good to elect Democrats. Either of the Democratic candidates for President would be preferable to McCain, but let's not forget that we elect these people because we expect them to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us as we fight for the things that we believe in.
As for Nader...
I think of Ralph Nader every time I get into my car and realize that without Nader, that car would not have air bags; shoulder safety belts; a steering wheel that is designed to crumple rather than spear me in the chest; etc.
I also think of Nader when my flight is cancelled and the airline is required to issue me a voucher for another flight.
He was also directly responsible for legislation that gave us: The EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, OSHA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, etc.
Whatever you think of the man's ill-advised bids for the White House, let's not pretend for a minute that the Democratic candidates were not equally to blame, nor hat Ralph Nader's sole legacy is the Bush Presidency.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions | May 18, 2008 11:33:07 PM
What a great day for the Democratic Party. Don't let it go to your heads though. There is still enough retarded lemmings to do the same thing for Insane McCainMcBush. Just watch the GOP pull out all the stops to fill some stadium somewhere just for the photos. They will have to after this.
Now it is time to get to work. I won't rest until President Obabma is sworn in. I know all to well that there are millions of Republiconvicts hiding in their caves, and they only come out ever two years to vote dead red. Remember, who would have thought the lying shrub would get reelected.
Fundraising, doorknocking, phone calling, putting up signs. You name it. People in blue states still need to fundraise to offset the corporate cash that will fill the GOP coffers.
We can't stop until ever single drop of power is removed from the constitution hating GOP, and Insane McCain.
Posted by: Chris #12 | May 18, 2008 11:38:06 PM
You guys are just pushing me further away from voting for Obama with this bullshit about blaming me and my pristine values for the war. I did lots of work to oppose the war. I really did. Probably thousands and thousands of hours worth of organizing, lobbying, protesting, etc. I don't know what you all did, other than take ten seconds to vote for Kerry o Gore. Hopefully you did a little more than that. Becuase if that's all you did, then you probably deserve much more of the blame than someone who voted for Nader in a state that was a safe bet for both Kerry and Gore.
I'll concede that Nader may have been a factor in the elections, but only one of many. Other factors were the shitty candidates, the Supreme Court, the millions of non-voters, possibly some election rigging, and much more. Gore was a shitty candidate--he could not even win his own state. Kerry was a shitty candidate who also failed to inspire people. Sure, some people voted for Nader that might have voted for one of those Democrats. But that assumes a great deal.
But my original point was that all of this is boring--not because the war is not important, but because we've been through this Nader thing ad nauseum.
I'm done with it, and I wish others were. But if folks like you try to pull the same slimy shit to keep progressive third party candidates off the ballot again in 2008, you will lose me for good. I voted for Obama last week, and I'm open to doing it again in November if someone can convince me that he truly does have a progessive foreign policy. But if the Democratic Party works to take away people's right to vote for someone like Cynthia McKinney, I think that would be a big mistake.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: James X. | May 18, 2008 5:57:04 PM
Better photos here, here, and here. (Seriously, that thumbnail doesn't do it any justice.)
[CB: Agreed. I've put the YouTube clip up as replacement for the photo.]