Obama Draws Huge Crowd In Oregon

capt.41d4f2c997834f1baa804bd07ca0722a.obama_2008_orcc116.jpg

According to MSNBC, 75,000:

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.”

And he’ll get a taste of the formidable campaign when he loses…bigtime… in Kentucky. So both Clinton and Obama will likely get the chance to deliver soaring victory speeches on Tuesday night (pointing to the one they won and downplaying the one they lost).

Obama also again displayed his rapidity in seizing on a political development:

He added a few lines to an otherwise typical stump speech, attacking presumptive GOP nominee John McCain for his ties to lobbyists, an issue the campaign is pushing and one the candidate spoke about with reporters earlier in the day. “John McCain now has had to get rid of five of his top advisers because it turns out they’re all lobbying, many of them for foreign governments. That’s because he practices the same kind of politics that we’ve grown accustomed to in Washington,” he said, adding that his campaign did not take money from PACs or federal lobbyists and saying he would have meetings on C-SPAN rather behind closed doors with lobbyists “in their Gucci shoes.”

But remember, nothing is in the bag until this lady has sung.

Auf Stumbleupon zeigen
Auf tumblr zeigen

  • StockBoySF

    Does anyone know the largest crowd that has turned out for President Bush (as President or when he was campaigning for the 2000 election)?

    This is amazing for Obama!

  • daveinboca

    Uh, Portland is the land of loons & possibly a quarter of the crowd were the H & crack addicts that make that drug-pliant metropolis their home.

    I saw a very big crowd for Hillary in Kentucky today, but this blog is pretty much immoderately in-the-tank for Obama, so no mention of her crowd sizes in a bigger state which will give her more delegates—that would be unbiased & moderate. It's pretty clear that the DNC will try to buffalo Hillary out of the race before the convention—Teddy went to the '80 convention 700 votes behind a sitting POTUS & it went to the floor. Where lots can happen.

  • mikkel

    Bigger state?

    Oregon 52
    Kentucky 51

    Anyway, on Tuesday Obama will be put over the majority of pledged delegates, so it'll be hard for Clinton to say that she fought him to a draw.

  • joegandelman

    Dave: As usual we appreciate your comments on posts, but I want to tell you for the last time that your constant comments about a blog with 20 people signed up who have the freedom to post whatever they want and give their views is a)getting old b)not appreciated.

    To say it one more time: there is no “line,” no orders from me (and I own the blog” on what they can write. We've only had a couple of instances where I felt I had to email people but it was more stylistic and never on who they supported or how the interpreted something. We all have codes and post when we want to post. PERIOD. Those are the FACTs. And we have some very strong supporters of Hillary Clinton on TMV and all they have to do is to post within the stylistic guidelines we all follow.

    If you saw a news story about Hillary Clinton getting a record crowd in Kentucky, then why don't you give me the link?

    Is it 30,000? 80,000? Aside from going after us because we ran something you don't, give us some facts. How big is your very big crowd?

    And it's clear that if Oregon turned out 75,000 for Hillary you would be saying how upstanding they are. Again: it is getting very very old you're going after this site. Kindly stick to the issue and debate that all you want. We DO appreciate your readership and really WANT your input in comments. But give us a link to a story about unsuall big crowds for Clinton in Kentucky.

    And we get your opinion of TMV, which frankly makes me think you might feel better comments on sites that are objective (which apparently means sites that support Hillary Clinton and don't have a ton of people signed up to write on them who don't even agree with each other). It's up to you. Your comments on the subjects covered in posts and related subject issues are welcome.

  • rjmpsmith

    If you want to dissagree with people on politics, fine.

    Maybe you're right and the media isn't reporting Hillary's crowd numbers as the largest one I could find with google was 2,200 people – “About 2,200 people filled the Louisville high school's gym”. No mention of anything today (Sunday).

    Still, as someone who lives in Portland, OR, I don't appreciate your attack on our city and it's people. We are NOTthe “land of loons”, nor do we have any more drugs than any other city of our size – and I'll wager that we have much less crime than most.

    So please. Rage on all you like about politics, but don't trash a huge group of people that you don't even know. Portland is a great city full of great people.

    Cheers,

    Robert

  • EEllis

    This is a example of what most concerns my about Obama. He seems like a nice guy, and as my brother once mentioned, it would be nice to have a president of color. Something to show that we are moving forward. But he says little. I mean yes we hear about change and hope and that's great but things are kept vague. Why shouldn't they be, he's doing well and why get penned down on exact facts before you need to. I figure much more will come out during the regular election campaign, good and bad. Why though the fever over someone who we don't really have a good idea about what he might do. Thats not a knock, being a relative newcomer we wouldn't know that much, but it's not “Let's give this a try” rather “I KNOW Obama will change America”. It's a bit over the top and more than a little off putting.

  • StockBoySF

    EEllis: “But he says little. I mean yes we hear about change and hope and that's great but things are kept vague. Why shouldn't they be, he's doing well and why get penned down on exact facts before you need to. I figure much more will come out during the regular election campaign, good and bad. Why though the fever over someone who we don't really have a good idea about what he might do.

    I think Obama has made it clear what he will do as president. You can go to his website barackobama.com and see for yourself.

    One place you might want to start is under “Issues” and then “Family”. Here's the link to that.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/

    Among some of the issues (more specifics on his website):

    Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies, Support Parents with Young Children, Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit and Provide a Living Wage.

    Under “Issues” there's other areas which you might find interesting.

    Happy reading!

  • daveinboca

    rsmith

    First of all, MSNBC is totally in the tank for Obama, so I don't trust their numbers nor do I trust the ultra-left community reps who made the count. OK I may have been harsh but I have two cousins living in the Portland OR area who constantly tell me about the non-violent drug crimes in the city, and I generalized from their drug anecdotes [maybe they live in a bad part of town?] about the use of hard drugs too much.

    Also, years ago in 1984, we were caught up in the Hatfield scandal and my wife was interviewed on all three networks [no Fox then] & the NYT front page above the fold on Hatfield's getting bribes from Basil Tsakos in the Trans African Pipeline Corp. Hatfield's wife was getting “interior design” payments from Tsakos to the tune of six figures & my wife & I ratted them out.. A reporter from The Oregonian sat in my kitchen with me getting details and he continually disparaged his readers in OR greatly, saying about the Trans-African Pipeline that most people in OR didn't what Africa was or where it is. Plus plenty more on the laid-back leftism of the OR crowd & the miracle that Hatfield was a Repub, albeit against the war in Vietnam a decade earlier.

    Basically, he described the state & city as left of SF in CA. He had Hatfield & Inouye on seven separate scandals that The Oregonian was trying to break [real estate in Hawaii, etc.]

    But I'll take your word that there are plenty of nice people in OR & your part of Portland.

  • CStanley

    Took me a minute to realize what your numbers represent, mikkel (delegate count of each state) because I too was looking at it as Daveinboca apparently is, in terms of electoral college votes. That actually points out how the Democratic nomination process is upside down and backwards- why would a state that has fewer votes in the electoral college have a higher delegate count for the nominating convention? Basically what is happening in this primary is that Obama's run a better campaign to capitalize on the party's nominating process, while that also gives Hillary her opening to argue to the superdelegates that without them overriding the results, the process results in a less electable candidate.

    Anyway, I just wanted to point that out in regard to Daveinboca's comment about the relative size of the states- though I don't agree with most of what he's saying. I think this crowd size is incredibly impressive- though I still question whether that kind of passion and depth of support that Obama has will translate into breadth necessary to win the general election (from my perspective, I hope not ;-) )

  • mikkel

    CS both parties actually tweak the number of delegates a state has based on the past presidential vote for the party. The Democrats actually do it district by district, which is why the popular vote can vary so widely in relation to the delegate numbers. It's just not as noticeable with most of the Republican's winner take all.

    There's no question that he took full advantage of all the little intricacies of the process, but in most states that meant he specifically targeted smaller districts that weren't as heavily Democratic and mostly ignored by Clinton. So he could argue that the delegate count shows his strength.

  • janinedm

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. At this point, if you don't know the policy positions of the three candidates, it says more about you than the candidates.

  • mlhradio

    Daveinboca's views are not isolated – this is now one of the newer (and growing) talking points among the Hillary dead-enders. The meme going around their echo chamber is that the mainstream media is hopelessly biased, that the media is unfairly trying to influence the election, that it's all a big plot by big media to push on particular candidate. For some strange reason, they have a particular hate-on for MSNBC, and specifically Keith Olbermann. It's almost funny, but really comes across as a little bit pitiable instead. From outside the Clinton circle looking in, their claims of bias don't make a whole lot of sense, but I'm sure to the hardcore Clinton dead-enders that only listen to what they want to hear, they've probably convinced themselves that it must be true. (Of course, some of the same can be said of the Obama-only echo chambers like dailykos, it cuts both ways).

    As the Obama nomination slowly becomes inevitable, the Clinton dead-enders are lashing out more and more — I've noticed an increasing trend in several blogs of the hardcore Clinton supporters to “attack the messenger” (i.e. blame the media) instead of the message (i.e. Obama wins).

  • CStanley

    For some strange reason, they have a particular hate-on for MSNBC, and specifically Keith Olbermann.
    LOL. Oh, wait, that wasn't meant sarcastically, was it?

    I've noticed an increasing trend in several blogs of the hardcore Clinton supporters to “attack the messenger” (i.e. blame the media) instead of the message (i.e. Obama wins).Yet strangely, it was Obama himself who said that he can't win in KY because too many people there watch Fox News.

    I don't have a dog in the Dem race, just pointing out the obvious- there's plenty of bias and plenty of whining going on in all quarters, but it always seems more obvious to notice the bias against your own favored candidate and the whining of his/her opponent.

  • EEllis

    Stockboy are you serious? This is what I'm saying. No hits on him for doing so because it's the same for every candidate, but no they do not talk about issues. Hope Change that's what keeps being said and why people are as into Obama as they are is a bit disconcerting. Are you asking me to believe that those 75,000 people read his “issues” web site? Right
    “Obama will simplify tax filings” is a real comprehensive plan that tells me everything I need to know right.

  • runasim

    “Let's give this a try” rather “I KNOW Obama will change America”.
    ———————————————————————————
    This is a valid distinction. It's also the reason why I'm willing to takke a chance on Obama.

    The change he is proposing is less about changing current policies (even hough he makes specific policy proposals), it's more about reforming the process by which policies are arrived at.
    That's a long term project, much longer than a presidential term in office At this time, it's what is needed most, IMO, and there r is no way to get started than to give someone a chance at starting the ball rolling.

    That's the kind of change I will be voting for, and Obama is the only one willing to give it a shot.

    Taking a chance, BTW, describes every vote. Campaign promises are only indicative of what a candidate will try to accomplish. They are not bankable certainties

  • EEllis

    Run your stance is reasoned and reasonable. We both know that for many others it's more a cult of personality or about a movement than what he is proposing as specific policy. There is a deference between “Why not give Obama a chance” and “Obama is our savior!!”. We both know people who are more in line with the latter than the former. Most candidates have a section of support that similar. Clinton definitely does, Huckaby did, Paul and Nader, it's that so much of Obamas base has come to be that segment that concerns me. It's people acting like he is something other than a guy running for office. Doesn't mean he can't do the job, I'm more disconcerted by his followers than him personally.

  • CStanley

    Personally I've never voted for someone to give them a chance, without a good bit more evidence of how he/she would perform (based on past resume and voting record.) I realize others feel differently about that, but even if Obama was a good bit more conservative (more aligned with what I think is the best policy, since I have conservative views) I'd still want him to gain more experience and prove himself before I'd 'give him a chance'. And certainly for those who believe that Obama's policies as president will be less liberal than his past positions, or that he'll 'work across the aisle', I don't get it at all. If you prefer liberal policies and like his rhetoric, it makes sense to support him, but I think others are being misled.

  • StockBoySF

    EEllis, thanks for looking at the Obama “Issues” page on his website… you mention Obama's simplified tax filing… I'd like to point out this from McCain's “Issues” page on his site:

    “A Real Choice For Simpler Taxes:

    John McCain Will Propose An Alternative New And Simpler Tax System –

    “…. Americans do not resent paying their rightful share of taxes – what they do resent is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands from the IRS.”

    Now that we know that McCain wants to simplify taxes…. I'd like to know if I will pay more or less under McCain's plan…. but unfortunately I can't find those details.

    As far as whether Obama's supporters have read the “Issues” on his web site… that's not an argument unless one can demonstrably prove that the other candidates' supporters have read the “Issues” sites for candidate while Obama's supporters haven't. I assume that all candidates have an equal an equal amount of supporters who read their issues site. But that's actually interesting, come to think about it. After all Obama's supporters are well-educated and have more money than Hillary's poor uneducated supporters (or elderly voters). Then there's all those college students who may not have much money but they can get around the internet like no one else can- and they tend to support Obama. So given the demographics of who supports Obama and who supports McCain and Hillary, I'd suggest that Obama's supporters are more likely to have read his “Issues” web page and know more about him than Hillary's or McCain's supporters…. In fact everyone I know who supports Obama did a lot of research before supporting him and they are very happy with what they see.

    At any rate, thanks again for visiting Obama's issues page on his web site. I think the Issues pages for other candidates are more or less the same- you won't find any lengthy white papers on Obama's or any candidate's plans on their web sites.

  • StockBoySF

    To everyone who express concerns about the enthusiasm of Obama supporters:

    A couple months ago when it was becoming increasingly clear that Obama was pulling ahead of Hillary, I actually posted that then was the time that voters needed to take a hard look at Obama and make sure that they knew his positions. I (like many of the comments on this particular thread) was concerned that many people were supporting Obama for the wrong reasons- Obama's supported liked his appeal without understanding his actual positions.

    So at this point it's a little late for people to suddenly become interested in politics and start looking at candidates. I mean we've know for something like forever that this race was coming up. We knew in Dec. 2006 (or so) that Hillary was running and then Feb. 2007 that Obama was running…. It's not like Obama just jumped into the race last week and everyone is surprised.

    So at this point anyone who is concerned about the motivation behind Obama's supporters is not being very productive. Besides, there's ***LOTS*** of talk about women being for Hillary because Hillary is a woman, but I don't see anyone claiming that those women who support Hillary because she's a woman have misplaced their judgement and are voting for the wrong reasons…. And don't pull the race card on this argument to argue that Obama benefits from the black vote the same way Hillary benefits from the women vote. Women make up slightly over 50% of the population and blacks make up 12% of the US population. Obama has a lot of support from non-black groups.

    At any rate at this point it's useless to talk about whether or not one's supporters are voting for that candidate for the right reasons. Once the nomination has been decided we need to move forward and tackle the problems in the US so we all have a better life.

  • EEllis

    “So at this point anyone who is concerned about the motivation behind Obama's supporters is not being very productive. Besides, there's ***LOTS*** of talk about women being for Hillary because Hillary is a woman, but I don't see anyone claiming that those women who support Hillary because she's a woman have misplaced their judgement and are voting for the wrong reasons…. “

    What? OK I just said that there supporters of many candidates that are loony and I mentioned Clinton, since Bill ain't running, please assume I meant Hill. And do you really think that “It's to late so everyone get behind Obama” really a good sales tactic? I'm not that worried about who gets elected. Thats why there are checks and balances right? But if a group freaks me out then they freak me out (a bit overstated but you know what I mean). I feel what I feel and “productive” has nothing to do with it.

  • StockBoySF

    “And do you really think that “It's to late so everyone get behind Obama” really a good sales tactic?”

    It's not a sales tactic at all. I apologize if I wasn't clear because what I meant was that this race is winding down with most of the races finished and Obama ahead (though Hillary could win if enough superdelegates support her…).

    As far as the loonies (as you call them) supporting each candidate…. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement in light of your comment… I don't think most people consider the women who support Hillary to be loonies in the way that people think of Obama's supporters as being looney. Somehow it seems OK for women to support Hillary because she's a women. But when folks get excited about Obama they are considered loonies (though you've clarified your comment about loonies to include some of Hillary's supporters) . I see a lot of talk about Hillary's supporters being passionate about Hill and that seems to be fine. To be honest there is a lot of talk about Obama's nomination being historic (like Hillary's), but there seems to be more negative talk about Obama's supporters (especially if they are black) than Hillary's supporters who love the fact that she could be the first female prez.

    Don't get me wrong- if Obama was in the race I would have supported HIllary. In fact I remember telling my Mom at Christmas (the Christmas before Obama announced) that I was torn between Hill and Obama. Since then I've studied Hillary more closely and decided she wasn't the candidate I wanted to support as prez.