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.]

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

Sorry if my first post sounded a little negative, I just really wanted people to know how amazing that crowd was!

Here's another good photo.

[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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Panorama pic here

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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!!!

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!

Personal photos from the rally here.

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!

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.

The Trailblazers victory rally in 1977 drew an estimated 250,000 to Portland.

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...

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.

"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.

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.

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?

<h1>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:</h1>

His 2002 speech on Iraq:

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.

Or this bit about Iran:

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.

Or this from 60 Minutes:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

What, beyond what I wrote, are you looking for, #12?

Go big, go big, go big. This MUST be Obama's strategy for public appearances.

One item to consider (in case David Plouffe is perusing Jefferson's comment and subsequent additions) is timing. Obama should map out a stream of punctuated enormous appearances (interspersed with regular average-sized campaign stops of course) that flow in increasing order of attendance. 20,000 - 40,000 - 65,000 - 100,000 - maybe even 110,000 at the Big House? Maybe we even get six figures in Portland in September or October.

Records = buzz. A record in a given state will generate buzz for a few days locally but if the campaign is careful to keep topping itself (rather than blowing a record in July when no one's watching), then it's a national story each time it happens. Play those cards right and you could get four or five "Obama sets new presidential campaign crowd record" stories between June and November.

And just BTW, if Obama starts filling stadiums then ESPN and sports fans of all political stripes will be engaged and impressed. A political story on SportsCenter is a huge win.

Katy, I agree, every time I see references to a pantsuit or the novelty nutcracker or the like, I cringe. It's pathetic that women are still ridiculed for stepping an inch outside the gender norm. And it's embarrassing that gender-specific insults are seen as acceptible to people who understand why epithets specific to one's race or sexual orientation aren't. And it's disappointing that racism vs. sexism has become some sort of parallel contest to Obama vs. Clinton, so that when a sexist (or racist) remark is called out, it's defended as though conceding the presence of sexism (or racism) is like conceding the superiority of the other candidate. I wish this weren't so. There's clearly a lot more work to do. For my part, I call out sexist language when I see it, and try to explain why it's wrong. But this is a struggle that will have to be continued whoever the nominee is. I support Obama, but that doesn't mean I support sexism. I consider myself a feminist. (But you can call me pro-feminist if you like.) Any guy who's been teased/mocked/beaten for straying outside the male gender norm should see how this is a problem that affects all of us.

PS: Contrary to the article's premise, it's not just men who are using sexist attacks against Clinton. Even Clinton's own campaign engages in them. Heck, McAuliffe owns one of those nutcrackers, and Carville can't think of any better way to express a woman's strength than to assert that she has three testicles. Clearly, some people have some hang-ups.

Portland's Obama rally was a defining moment in the campaign. I'm so proud of Oregon right now. The pictures offer irrefutable proof of what is going on, and we're a huge international news story. To think, it easily could have been raining. Though it just happened a few short hours ago, it already seems mythical. I'll never forget seeing the line up by 6th and thinking, "Great, there must be another event downtown today besides the rally." Maybe one of those walkathons or whatever. Suddenly I realized that no, this was the rally. Amazing.

I worry about Obama's support of the Cheney energy bill. This will take away local control of the LNG terminals (giving it to the US gov't instead) and allow Cheney's gas pipelines to come from Wyoming to Oregon to transport gas for California.

That doesn't seem right.

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!

What an utterly insulting, repugnant, foolish thing to say? Has it occurred to you that some people are voting their issues, like jobs, education, clean energy.

Obama didn't vote against a war. He was a state leg at the time.

Melanie - I've never seen anyone claim that Obama voted against the war, only that he spoke out against it at the time.

He spoke out for three minutes at an anti-war rally when he was running in a primary where all of his opponents had already loudly, clearly spoken out. Hey, look, kudos to him, but it doesn't give you much insight into his FP. I spoke out too. Hillary spoke out against pre-emption herself. Bush had all the tools to finish inspections and avoid war.

Melanie, the governor of PA admitted (as a way to pump up Hillary, sadly) that many white people in his state just wouldn't vote for a black guy. Why is it not fair to refer to those bigoted voters?

I really don't care what Rendell said. It's not about him. Wilder won the Appalachia voters. It's quite rude to assume voters are against Obama because he is black, rather than for Hillary. I could make the same argument, by the way. I could say many upper income white men are rather sexist, and won't vote for a strong woman. People in West Virginia largely voted on issues like jobs and the economy. Disparaging the voters for not voting for your candidate is in bad taste. Case in point, Deval Patrick is black and he won MA in a historic landslide. Hillary won the state's primary over Obama in a landslide. Blaming the voters is never a good idea.

Katy sez: 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

Folks, this is an interesting article. (I had already read it before Katy's posting.) It deals with feminists upset at some Obama supporters. OK. The fundamental problem with this article is that the author slides down that slippery slope of taking a few bits of anecdotal evidence and drawing a sweeping conclusion. The particular sweeping conclusion is that "Obama supporters", in some generic way, and especially if they are men, are just addicted to harsh, sexist language about Hillary Clinton.

I'm sorry, Katy, but generalizing from anecdotes simply does not cut it. And as applied in the linked article, it turns into yet one more guilt-by-association trip.

If you want to generalize from anecdotal evidence, why not generalize instead from me? I'm someone who prefers Obama (note the word "prefer", not "adore", "worship", etc.). I also think pretty highly of Senator Clinton. I happen to think she ran a lousy campaign, and that if she had run a smart campaign, she would now be the nominee.

By the way, it was my wife who, in part, persuaded me to support Obama rather than Clinton when the race had come down to the two of them.

Does any of this make me a misogynist jerk?

Nobody likes being taken for granted and tossed into a category.

"Nobody likes being taken for granted and tossed into a category."--joel

Exactly. Well said.

Excuse me, DH, what did I say that offends you? That it's not appropriate to assume anyone who supports Hillary is some kind of racist?

Over half of the registered Democrats and half of the primary voters have voted for Hillary, so apparently lots of people are pretty into her. As for Rendell, well, ok, then you must also believe that women in NH who brought Hill her victory did so because she is white because that's what a number of Obama surrogates claimed. He's not running against a white man. If we are going to assume Hillary's voters are primarily racist than let's assume Obama's voters are primarily sexist. Do you think that's fair?

Ask Obama or his staff to respond to the allegations Larry Sinclair has been making.

Larry has claimed that Barack Obama's drug practices are much more recent than he claims.

Larry has also subpoenaed Barack Obama, David Axelrod, and the campaign for phone records in connection with an execution-style murder of Donald Young.

§ Donald Young was the choirmaster of Obama's much maligned Trinity church.

§ Donald Young had been in contact with Larry until his death.

It turns out that Donald was also gay.

Parties unknown executed Donald and several other members of Chicago’s gay community.

Why is Larry doing this?

http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/

I said REGISTERED Democrats, and she's ahead by about six points. But, no, you are wrong, Hillary has about half the vote depending on whether or not you include estimates of a few of the caucuses. He's ahead less than 85k votes if you include them. She's ahead by 50k if you don't.

"The charge was made to bigots in PA/OH/WV, which Hillary's supporters have acknowledged and used as a suggestion not to vote for him either."

Again, calling Hillary's voters bigots in unwise and offensive.

OK then...Hillary's voters are uptight, arrogant, pushy, and stubborn. They all act as if they have a chip on thier collective shoulders when there isn;t really one to begin with. Who wants that in a world office?

Not me.

Old Coastie wrote: I worry about Obama's support of the Cheney energy bill. This will take away local control of the LNG terminals (giving it to the US gov't instead) and allow Cheney's gas pipelines to come from Wyoming to Oregon to transport gas for California.

That doesn't seem right.

THE TRUTH IS: Obama is a cosponsor of the act (Along with Wyden, Clinton and Dodd) to restore LNG siting decision-making authority to the states. see http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=392&ArticleID=51348&TM=4775.085

Voters in West Virginia aren't racist? Fully 20% of white voters said race was a factor in their decision in the official exit polls. The artice is right here. Please read it and then wake up!

Howard Dean has admitted those votes in elections certified by those states indeed have nothing to do with sanctioning delegates and should be included in popular vote reporting. Duh. Real people went to the polls an exercised their right to participate.

Whoops....here is the article:

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=4844868

David, as I said, exit polls are not the most reliable source of voter intent. Why is it important to disparage Hillary's voters? I don't understand that.

Exit polls are not super reliable when it comes to race- that is definately true. We all know that people vote their racial prejudices but usually will deny it to the pollsters. That factor would only lend MORE weight to the 20%. Are you saying that people who DIDN"T vote against Obama because of his race lied and told pollsters they DID?? That is the only way the number would be artificially high.

David Dorn: Fully 20% of white voters said race was a factor in their decision in the official exit polls. The artice is right here. Please read it and then wake up!

And? 19% of Obama's voters said gender of their candidate was important. What's your point?

Obama's not going to crown himself 5/20. What a shame.

I'd say it's because he can't close the deal again, but what would I know? I'm a racist.

"The onus is on her and her campaign now to prove to people that she can end this with dignity and grace."

Add to that - Quit being stubborn. Lose the non-existant chip on your shoulder and the uptight candor. This attitude could hurt the D's in November.

Just give her a fork to put into herself. It's the only way now...

I mean, if Portlanders are going to pat themselves on the back for 'nullification' of WV-PA-OH, y'all should at least be equal opportunity about it.

Wow Lambert the way you can distort the positions of others you would make a great republican! Did anybody say all or even most Hillary supporters are racist? All I was saying is that race was a factor in WV. The exit polls proved it and people under-report voting their racial prejudices, they don't over-report it!

"And? 19% of Obama's voters said gender of their candidate was important. What's your point?"

I provided an article to back my number. Where is your source? What's the matter? The factsa aren't on your side?

Hate to tell you this, but it was a big show, a free rock concert so to speak on a beautiful day and a lot of non-voters, Republicans, Hillary supporters were there to see the spectacle. I have talked to several undecided voters who are still leaning Hillary after attending the event. And several who were frightened into solid Hillary support by the mind-mush Obamaton-mania.

She hasn't had a catastrophic campiagn. She had a poor caucus strategy. She's outperformed Obama for the past two months. Some front-runner.

"Are you saying he's being unwise and offensive?" Absolutely. Look, if you are for BO, or against HRC, fine. But calling her supporters racist is not wise. I fail to see how you think BO can win a GE if all these Democrats are such racists. Really, do yourself a favor, stop patting yourself on the back, and accept that some voters are more attracted to her message, and some are more attracted to Obama's.

"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working _ hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Hillary Clinton said that! You were saying, Melanie????

Clumsy but factual.

Wow! Days before a primary in WV where we now know AT LEAST 20% of white voters considered race an important factor she said that and you have the nerve to criticixe bama supporters for simply pointing out that racism is a factor in WV! Wow!!

On what basis has Hillary outperformed him in the last two months?

Most wins, most votes.

There's Swahili saying - "Polie polie ndio menedo" that sums up Baracks campaign beautifully; Slow and steady wins the race. Americans need to understand that politics and governance are not fast-food drive thrus; democracy is a huge meandering system that serves a quarter billion people. American democracy was never pegged to some sort of post Super-Tuesday coronation...

America doesn't need any more fighters, we have plenty of those both here and abroad; what we do need is a reverent thinker.

Melanie: If Obama went to NC and said in an interview that college educated white voters and African Americans were supporting him, what would you think of that? But Obama wouldn't do that. He doesn't divide people the way HRC does.

DH: Was this in WV ?

No, sorry, MS, a big blow-out state for BO. I just went back and double-checked ... 19.32% (% who said that gender was a factor * Obama % share).

My source is the actual exit poll.

Both race and gender have been factors that the candidates have both benefited from and been hurt by. I still don't understand why nullification of possible racial bias is proactive while gender bias is considered 'excuse-making.'

At this point, I am so sick of the hate-filled remarks and slander from Hillary supporters at BlueOregon that I could vomit.

I will never vote for Hillary. She has demonstrated by her rovian campaign that she is unfit.

Hi,

Salon has been shit since Joan Walsh took over as editor.

Chris #12 can gtf. No one cares about your parsing "will" vs "would". Vote however you want. Lots of idiots will.

Melanie, I'll take a meaningless speech against war over "speaking up against pre-emption" and a vote for war any day. You are also pretty shit at made up metrics and numbers that don't mean anything.

FWIW, it always bothered me that HC was always referred to by first name.

DITTO. Talk about infantilizing a woman. Is it necessary to point out that this usage was adopted by Senator Clinton herself? And by her supporters?

Re: Portland May 18:Hate to tell you this, but it was a big show, a free rock concert so to speak on a beautiful day and a lot of non-voters, Republicans, Hillary supporters were there to see the spectacle. I have talked to several undecided voters who are still leaning Hillary after attending the event. And several who were frightened into solid Hillary support by the mind-mush Obamaton-mania.

I don't follow the "hate to tell you" rigamarole. Why assume that everyone who attended was a rapid Obama supporter? Yo, I happen to support Obama, and I went to see Hillary Clinton speak in Hillsboro back in May. Try to wrap your mind around the idea that intelligent voters actually try to collect information and hear the candidates. And give me a break about people being "frightened into" support Clinton by "Obamaton-mania". Obama supporters are looking at the choices and making a rational decision, just as you are.

do yourself a favor, stop patting yourself on the back, and accept that some voters are more attracted to [Clinton's] message, and some are more attracted to Obama's.

OF COURSE.

Geez Louise, folks, this is the closest contest for the Democratic Party nomination for decades. It's damn near a 50/50 split. STOP BULLYING EACH OTHER.

Ok, here's a map of where Hillary won greater than 65% of the vote. Here's a map of Appalachia. Here's what Appalachians have been saying to reporters that we haven't been hearing elsewhere:

AP Video:

I guess because he is another race. It — I'm sort of scared of the other race because we have so much conflict with them.

WaPo:

One Pittsburgh union organizer told her he would not vote for Obama because he is black, and a white voter, she said, offered this frank reason for not backing Obama: "White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people." One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!" At Scranton's annual Saint Patrick's Day parade, some of the green Obama signs distributed by staffers were burned along the parade route. According to Seifert, the woman pointed to Obama's face on Seifert's T-shirt and said: "He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?" On Election Day in Kokomo, a group of black high school students were holding up Obama signs along U.S. 31, a major thoroughfare. As drivers cruised by, a number of them rolled down their windows and yelled out a common racial slur for African Americans, according to Obama campaign staffers.

There are many more examples where those came from. Now, I'm sorry, but people just are not burning Obama signs on people's lawns, yelling the n-word at children on the street, etc., in Oregon. Of course there are racist people here, too, but there is clearly something different happening in Appalachia.

Also, Melanie, Clinton has performed better in the last couple months by the slimmest of margins, not because she's doing better nationally — national polls show Obama higher than at any point before — but because there have been late contests in Appalachia. PA and WV are where Clinton has received the bulk of her votes lately. There's no shift to Clinton in the national dynamics, Clinton is just getting the late Appalachian contests. She'll do quite well in KY, too, and, gee, that just happens to be another Appalachian state.

Also, when you say we shouldn't point out the greater presence of racism in Appalachian society so as not to disparage Clinton voters, you seem a lot like the people I was telling Katy about, those who won't acknowledge sexism or racism because of which candidate they support.

Claiming the other side is "racist" or "sexist" may make one feel morally superior but it accomplishes nothing positive. Those who actually are motivated by racism or sexism will likely not see themselves in your claim or they won't even care. Those who are not motivated by race or sex will be insulted and further inflamed by the guilt-by-association. And those who are undecided will likely be turned off by the whole conversation and simply choose to disengage not to vote for either side.

Have there been racist and sexist remarks? Yes. Does it make sense to call them out when they occur? Yes. But to generalize the characteristics of an individual, a group, or even a whole state and claim it is descriptive of most or all of the people who voted the same way in my mind approaches becoming that which you condemn.

Convince me to support your candidate/platform by its merits, by facts, and thoughtful discussion. Please refrain from attacking the platform or candidate you oppose. Remember that good, thoughtful, and decent people can arrive at different conclusions.

-tl

Wow, I'm quite careful with my tags, and I remember closing that one, but maybe I erred. Let's try this.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to say that most or all Appalachians are racist, I was pointing out that they (a) vote very differently, and that they (b) live in a much different racial environment than we do — not in terms of racial makeup, but in terms of racial attitudes. And I do beleive the environment one is exposed to has an effect on one's attitudes and opinions — and that is not code for "you're racist because your neighbor is." Rather, that's a statement that has certainly been as true for me as I know it is for others. And I do believe that if we want to understand, anthropologically or strategically, what factors contribute to the fact that KY and OR voters of the same race, age, education and income levels will be voting much differently, we should examine some screamingly obvious cultural differences.

"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working _ hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

-Hillary Rodham Clinton

Sure, lets ignore the fact that racism is going on. Even though HRC herself was out there race-baiting says before the WV primary!

FYI, If anyone lost a ten-dollar-bill at the event... just so you know it's been donated to the Obama campaign.

Kristin: You made some excellent points in your post, but NOBODY "talk(ed) about all Clinton supporters as racist" Myself and others have pointed out that race was a significant factor in recent elections. The exit polls proved that. 20% of white voters in WV admitted race was a factor in their vote. And HRC proved she was not above exploiting that fact when she made her crass & offensive quote that I referenced in my previous post.

Is it me, or do I see (reading this thread) that Clinton supporters are just a little bit too uptight, pushy, and seem to have some chip on thier shoulder (like thier leader)?

FYI Kool Ade drinkers ... Barry Obama has lost in nearly all of the big electoral states.... Popular vote does not win the White House

Chris Lowe said, "But Obama's foreign policy and military people are not neocons, coming rather from the self-annointed 'realist' school."

You apparently have allowed some facts to escape down the memory hole:

The founder of the "realist school" was the despicable war criminal, Henry Kissinger. "Realists" believe that mankind is self-centered and competitive, in contrast to the approach of liberalism, for example. Further, "realists" believe that states are inherently aggressive and that territorial expansion is only constrained by military or economic domination. Ask the Chileans or the Viet Namese or the Nicaraguans or the Cambodians, or...

So the difference between the neocons and the realists is not so apparent, is it? Like the difference between Obama, Clinton and McCain.

David Dorn: 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.

Did you miss the event notice that said specifically that you couldn't bring signs? You can't be mad at them for taking something away that they told you not to bring.

Red:FYI Kool Ade drinkers ... Barry Obama has lost in nearly all of the big electoral states.... Popular vote does not win the White House

Are we Obama supporters really the Kool Aid drinkers? Last I checked Barack is winning in delegate total which is how a primary is won. This isn't the general election bud. You seem to be the one drinking the Kool Aid.

"Are we Obama supporters really the Kool Aid drinkers? Last I checked Barack is winning in delegate total which is how a primary is won. This isn't the general election bud. You seem to be the one drinking the Kool Aid."

Every day, Clinton seems to add even more sweetner to the already sugary Kool-Aid she has seemed to shower down the throats of her very-willing, over-enthusiastic, and uptight followers.

I would not be suprised if she started to wear the robes that go with that Kool-Aid soon.

For what it's worth, it is virtually impossible to identify trolls, a fact that ought to serve as a cautionary warning to those with thin skins. The postings that wind up inflaming readers might well be INTENDED for that purpose. Think about it.

For what it's worth, it is virtually impossible to identify trolls, a fact that ought to serve as a cautionary warning to those with thin skins. The postings that wind up inflaming readers might well be INTENDED for that purpose. Think about it.

Red: Obama is way ahead of McCain in NY, CA, MA, NJ, etc. Those are the easy states.

Kudos to Reality Check and Chris #12.

The reason there is no democratic party among the two corporate defined and controlled entities is that Democrats continuously find means to keep not only progressive third party candidates off the ballots and out of debates, but also their own progressive membership. Ask Kucinich.

Garrett: actualli yes I did miss that notice about the signs. I didn't know about the rally until someone mentioned it to me the day before the event, and I just showed up. Somone did approach me while I was in line way back in the park blocks and said they were only allowing signs that were made at the sign painting party and they might take mine. But he told me the main reason for the rule was to make sure everyone stays "on message" And since mine didn't say anything controversial, it might be allowed. What does that mean?? We have had an administration for the last eight years that was very "on message". Is controlling peoples' speech really the way we as democrats want to go? Also I think it was very rude of the guy who took my sign to taunt me with the "I'm a Beaver fan" remark. Was THAT on message??

Dorn, it really is pretty common for homemade signs to be confiscated because of security, and not just by the Obama campaign. I suspect the person you talked to had just figured on his own why the signs were confiscated, or had talked to someone else who had done the same. As you said, your sign wasn't controversial. It wasn't about the message. It could have said "CHANGE WE CAN BELIVE IN" and still have been taken.

Thank you Chris and Pat! I really have had a hard time throughout this election, I'm so tired of hearing my supposedly progressive male friends constantly referring to Clinton as a "bitch," etc. I really don't care who anyone votes for in the primary, I just wish that some of the language from the beginning hadn't been as harsh and sexist. It makes me feel like we're not as progressive as I thought we were out here in Oregon. Would anyone ever call Obama pushy? Of course not.

What I said was not sexist, Pat...

"Select an adjective to describe Clinton. Apply it to a male candidate. If it sounds goofy when applied to a male.."

Sam Adams, Randy Leonard, and Mannix are also extremely pushy and very uptight. Along with Clinton, they really need to calm down and have stress management counciling.

WITH OBAMA BEING OUR NEXT PREISDENT HE WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD THANKS PORTLAND FOR SHOWING THOSE RACIST STATES LIKE WEST VIRGINIA WHATS UP I HAVE BEING THERE TO WEST VIRGINIA AND ITS NOT PRETTY THOSE FOLK CANT HARDLY READ MOST LESS VOTE FOR THE CORRECT PERSON FOR PRESIDENT TOO MUCH INBREEDING THEY REALLY DO LOOK FUNNY LIKE THE HAPSBURG ( A ROYAL FAMILY BACK IN THE 1700S WHO COULD ONLY MARRY PEOPLE WITH THE ROYAL BLOOD AND MOST OF THE TIMES IT WAS THERE SISTER) NASTY NASTY

darrelplant argues well that Gore was certainly capable of attacking Iraq. I would add this Gore gem from one of the Bush/Gore debates in 2000:

Bush/Gore debate on Iraq "I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further." (Notice his pride in having maintained the sanctions.)

Chris Lowe: You said the realists "are somewhat less likely to engage in adventurist aggression like the Iraq invasion", but Kissinger, the father of the realists, was as capable of advising slaughter, torture and domination as any of the Bush neocons. Perhaps you're referring to some technical philosophical difference.

I object to your calling my active engagement in the Nader campaign "an abstention protest vote". In my opinion, a vote for your old dead cat Rutherford B. Hayes is better spent than a vote for a corporate dominated hegemonist. In answer to your sarcasm, I live in Portland and I do more than just abstain from voting for corporatists.

Chris #12 - Obama got me a little panty-ruffled talking about the war, too - but he still got my vote on the other stuff... i'll be thrilled if he can get at least an eighth of al his ambitious goals accomplished and hope to see the guy in the white house. BLACK house!

Wow! OREGON is different from the rest of the nation, we know that. Obama was projected to win and he did by 17%. At the same time, Hillary Clinton won 35% margin in Kentucky, but the media overshadowed that because they do have an agenda. It is Pro Obama. But lets’ get real about rallies and events. People from both sides go to listen and hear what may possibly be new, or those that were undecided to help make their choice. But the truth behind the Portland “CONCERT” is that it was a free concert and that he “Obama” wisely capitalized on the timing and that the media once again distorted the truth. Take a look for yourself and read the truth.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/robert-knight/2008/05/20/free-concert-popular-band-preceded-obama-s-big-rally

I know what to expect with John McCain as President. But with Barack Obama – it is a mystery. I’m all for Hope but I need substance. All the talk about CHANGE doesn’t amount to anything without action. Explain this: Obama says he didn’t vote for the Iraq war and that has been a big part of his platform. But honestly he didn’t become Senator until 2004 and the war was voted on and started in 2003. Lends to credibility from the get go. Words do matter. Too many times he wants his actions or words dismissed but holds others accountable down to the letter.

I know what to expect with Hillary Clinton (She gives specifics and has a plan for Oregon and our specific needs - http://www.hillaryclinton.com/hq/oregon/compact/compact.aspx). You can also see what she has actually accomplished in out of the Senate as well as so many things for children.

HILLARY CLINTON OUR NEXT PRESIDENT - SHE STANDS UP AND FIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLE!

That’s one reason Hillary Clinton has my support. By the way, I love people of all nationalities (my family is very colorful) and I’m proud to be an American.

As I mentioned in the other thread...Valerie...would you, could you, please cut your daily dosage of that extra sweet Clinton Kool-Aid you have been enthusiastically guzzling. It's distorting the common sense areas of your brain.

The vote is over now here in Oregon. Live with it and go bother the waiting sheep in Montana.

Eric, Yes you must be a true Obamamite - No substance in any argument, just whining and meaningless content. Obviously you are familiar with “Jimmy Jones” and have already drunk the “purple juice” of Obama and are his uneducated and uniformed minion. The game is not over, but I will leave this blog where you must be some interesting wing of the Democratic Party who forgot about being open minded. That is the same spirit that I have found from several other Obama followers. Shredding signs and scaring people from voting. So, is your hatefulness and arrogance a representation of your fearless leader, or is that just who you are? GOD save America if that is the case.