75,000

Barack Obama played host to 75,000 attendees at a rally in Portland last weekend.  To put that in perspective, that is more votes than either candidate received in 10 states: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.  More images here.

Comments

[Joe]

Maybe I should've asked here, but someone pointed out that McGovern once drew big crowds. Because I wasn't alive in '72, can someone give us a size comparison, just for the heck of it?

I can only find more recent crowds on Google, all of which are about 1/10th the size of this one.

Which leads me to wonder, have there been any online voter registration drives? It seems like that would be fertile ground for Obama. Especially advertising on certain non-political sites like, say, slashdot.org that are overwhelmingly pro-Obama (admittedly from only one non-scientific poll, but it was something like 80% Obama, 10% Paul and not at all representative of the US population in general).

[John]

The crowd sizes are very impressive. However large, this is still a very small number of people when it comes to actual voters. Obama does have some intense supporters. But I remember before the Pennsylvania primary, reporters were gushing over the 35,000 people filling the streets of Philly right before the primary, which he of course lost by 10% to Hillary Clinton. Obama's supporters have more free time, and they go to events like this. It is very exciting. But Ron Paul also draws record-breaking crowds and numbers, and he's a nut. Let's focus on vote totals--not crowd sizes--Obama, after all, is doing pretty well on the vote total measure too.

[John]

Here's a great picture of a massive rally for John Kerry in Madison, WI in 2004. Over 100,000 people attended. Exciting, and they won Wisconsin (too bad Ohio didn't work out though):

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/1029-03.jpg

[Lynne B]

Joe said: "Obama's supporters have more free time, and they go to events like this"
huh?

[Joe]

Lynne B: The name comes AFTER the post, not before it (I know that's hard to get used to).

Those were John's words, not mine.

[suekzoo]

Joe, I can only offer anecdotal evidence about McGovern's rallies. I attended one in 1971 in Ann Arbor. (I was in high school then.) McGovern rallies in college towns were huge events. The time was ripe rallies, and campus activism against the Vietnam war was in full bloom. Protest rallies, campaign rallies were major events across the country. (As were Grateful Dead concerts, but I digress...)

[Truth]

I don't see a reason to cite the 75,000 rally as anything but positive, unless it is used to overinflate or demean. It was what it was meant to be: a show of support in the district he is the strongest.

"To put that in perspective, that is more votes than either candidate received in 10 states: " Mr. Super

But if we are going to go that route:
"To put that in perspective, you would have to double that to show how many more people voted for Hillary in the very last Primary."

Obama is going to lose on the "don't attack Michelle" front. He already attacked Bill Clinton and Cindy McCain, so he is contradicting himself and everybody knows this. Michelle strongly injected herself into the campaign, but Cindy has not.

[suekzoo]

Truth:

Please provide some evidence of this comment:
"He already attacked ...Cindy McCain..."

Thanks.

[Truth]

Calling for her tax return is an attack and only works on the incredibly stupid. Clinton won the tax return wars. Nothing was discovered except on the charity front. Clinton gave to the Clinton Global Initiative which has a proven record of doing good (putting your money where your mouth is) and Obama gave to a church with a pastor he now views unfavorably (mainly because Wright attacked him).

SNL summed it up perfectly when they had fake Hillary saying something like "and I wondered if people thought me getting a $10 million advance meant I actually had $10 million."

Clinton released more on her time as first lady than Obama released on his time as an Illinois Senator, claiming those records weren't kept. Winner: Clinton.

[suekzoo]

Truth: "Calling for her tax return is an attack"

It is? Sheesh. When I hired in at my current job, I had to a agree to a full credit check, including providing my last year tax return, and a criminal background check, and believe me, I don't hold a high level job.
I guess I don't see it as objectionable to have the Leader of the Free World and their spouse release their financial information.

Anyway, show some evidence that Obama did this. I know the press has called for the release of her returns. They have done that with every candidate. I don't recall hearing it coming directly from Obama.

[Truth]

Suekzoo,
Your job required your tax return? What if you had a spouse that files taxes separately and they asked for their tax return? Of course you wouldn't. I wouldn't even give my tax return to an employer. As an employer, I couldn't even imagine requiring a new hire to provide their tax return.

Federal and state laws prohibit all but the smallest employers from discriminating against
an employee or applicant because of race, color, gender, religious beliefs, national origin,
disability, or age. Your tax return gives clues about your age and disability, so you could easily argue that what your employer did was illegal. If you hate your employer, you can thank me for this advice.

But back to the original point which is: Obama will lose on the leave my wife out of this request. Your arguments actually support my original statement that he will lose on this issue.

[walker]

@Truth:
Given that Teresa Heinz-Kerry was eventually bullied into releasing her tax returns I do not see how it is so unreasonable to expect the same of Cindy McCain. Her reasoning thus far: "It's none of my business, this is my husband's race." If you agree with this statement, then it's not even worth discussing further. Family, for better or worse, has become a part of this race and really I do not see Obama ranting and raving about the relentless attacks on his wife: show me exactly what he said and then your argument will be a little more clear (instead of simply standing on invisible suppositions, as I believe it actually is).

[Joe]

Well, I do think that he can say that personal attacks against family are off limits, while calling for full disclosure of where all this money is coming from.

After all, he doesn't have a rich spouse capable of donating buckets of money to his campaign like McCain does.

But you're right in that if it's simplified too far (something the press ALWAYS loves to do), it can be made out to be hypocrisy.

[suekzoo]

Truth, what my employer does is totally legal. My brother-in-law has been a professor of labor law for 25 years, so I know what I know on good authority. It's all in the timing. It's the last step in the hiring process, comes after the offer is made. It's a contingency to employment, just as proof of eligibility to work in the US is (SSN # or Green Card) which also gives a clue to age, origin, etc. and is not considered discrimination.

Employers can disqualify people from employment legally for all kinds of failures of contingent requirements of hiring. They just can't refuse to take an application initially based on race, etc. After that, there are lots of loopholes. TONS!

But, back to the original point. I view POTUS and spouse as a whole different deal. IMO, full disclosure regardless of how the candidate and spouse file (joint or singly) is in the best interest of the American public, and that more transparency is better. (I thought Teresa Heinz Kerry should have disclosed, too, when all the flap started in the last race.)I just don't buy the argument of "financial privacy because I'm not the candidate" when we are talking about the most powerful couple on the planet, who are also public servants at the highest level in our country. The First Lady is maintained by the taxpayers during their tenure, and so we are entitled to know if there are any conflicts of interest.

Cindy McCain has allowed use of assets under her control for her husband's campaign, and the reimbursement has already been found to be not up to snuff by campaign laws. So she has inserted herself financially into the campaign.

[Tony in MI]

John writes "Here's a great picture of a massive rally for John Kerry in Madison, WI in 2004. Over 100,000 people attended. Exciting, and they won Wisconsin (too bad Ohio didn't work out though)"

Ohio didn't work out, but I'm not convinced that John Kerry lost there. In Ohio, two election workers were convicted on felony charges for rigging the recount to avoid a more thorough ballot review.

See http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Jacqueline+Maiden%22

[Joe]

And now we have this to add to the debate over spouses:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/tennessee-gop-senator-takes-on-his-own-party/

I don't know why he stood up to the RNC from within, but it does make me think better of him. Though I can't deny wondering whether those three special election losses had anything to do with it.

After all, I seem to recall that the margin of victory got MUCH higher in the runoff election after the first one was too close.

If the Republicans keep up the cheap shots like that regardless, I can only think that your job will get a lot easier.

[Truth]

First, McCain is trying to hold Obama to running the GE on public funds. Obama is setting up the loopholes, not McCain.

Second, spouse's reflect and define a person's outlook on life. Everybody knows Hillary was influential in Clinton's administratio. Go back to the 90s and it will be about Hillary having too much influence, not that she was just a decoration as is implied now.

Third, the only person hurt by the tax return release has been Obama. Besides the charity thing, I believe his last return showed more income than all the other years released combined. To me, it makes sense that the more national attention you gain, the more your ability to earn income increases. Or, I could make wild accusations that it lines up with him running for president and influence being purchased as Obama implied with Clinton. You will not be able to find illegal activity on a tax return because it is a legal document. It is just a political point that will turn up nothing if carried out, so on my list of how important it is … way down there.

So my original point that Michelle is fully open to criticism has only been made stronger during this exchange. If they attack Obama's kids, that is an entirely different story. I would never defend that. The only one attacking Obama’s family outside of a spouse so far was Obama (white grandmother, a comparison I’m sure Obama regrets).

[walker]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wife

Being taken to task for saying "For the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" cannot be equivocated with demanding that Cindy McCain ought to release her tax returns.

Now, as for who was actually hurt in the 'tax release' shindig, I would say it was Clinton, for calling Obama, with his paltry-by-comparison ~$2 million dollar income 'elitist', while she laughs her way to the bank with $109 million in taxed income.

I'm sure you have some justification for that sordid affair that will somehow exonerate Clinton, so please Truth, have at it: I really am enjoying this.

[Joe]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4888329&page=1

Now here's something that won't enthuse McCain's base. Independents, especially libertarians, perhaps. But not the base.

Then again, Obama went on Fox and it didn't kill him, so who knows? But I'm sure it's about the same feeling for McCain's base.

Heck, I hate even linking to ABC at this point and I haven't read the story past the first few lines because I haven't actually visited the link, either.

[suekzoo]

Truth, you totally crack me up sometimes. :o)

No one said tax returns will show illegal activity, but they sure can show conflicts of interest. There is a huge difference between those two things. In the case of the Clinton's and Bill's library and the WJC Foundation (not the Clinton FAMILY Foundation - there are two different and distinct charities, btw) those conflicts could be enormous. Fair game to demand transparency.

During the Clinton administration, after the healthcare initiative went down in flames, Hillary returned to a more traditional First Lady role. Look it up. She wanted to claim all the success, but didn't want to release evidence of her involvement. Disingenuous.

As far as attacking Michelle Obama, funny thing that. Some Republicans and Republican stategists this evening are saying that kind of thing is a mistake and could backfire by turning off independents and the Reagan Democrats. Yet the TN GOP intends to continue. We'll see how it works out. Probably much like the Obama/Wright/Pelosi ad worked in MS last week, I'd bet.

Yes, McCain is trying to hold Obama to public funding. Obama has effectively redefined "public funding." His campaign has been funded by the public, at an average of $96 per contribution. McCain, meanwhile, is bleeding lobbyists left and right out of the upper levels of his campaign. What's he up to now, 5?

[Blame]

Much as I dislike it, I have to agree with Truth. Michelle is a valid target. She is an active member of the campaign, and her unfortunate quote was part and parcel of that campaign.

It also saddens me to say that Obama's misuse of the McCain "100 years" quote does not leave him with the moral high ground.

How much use will negative campaigning be this time? Rather less than expected. The American public are looking almost entirely for one and only one thing from the next President. They are looking for competency. Anything else will be forgiven.

America is in just too much trouble to care about anything but good government, and Bush has shown just how bad an incompetent President can botch things up.

It is interesting to note how many comments about why Hillary deserved to loose are not about past baggage, Bill, Bosnian snipers, or negative campaigning, and certainly not about her sex, but that her campaign showed her to be a poor manager. Her motto was “ready from day one”, and if she had been she would have won.

The man who shows the better management skills, and puts the better team of provisional Whitehouse staff on display will be the winner. “Ready from day one” is going to have to be the motto for all candidates.

[Joe]

> The man who shows the better management skills, and puts the better team of provisional Whitehouse staff on display will be the winner. “Ready from day one” is going to have to be the motto for all candidates.

I think you have a really good point there.

If that's true, though, I dare say Obama has done better. McCain (barely) saved his campaign from bankruptcy by betting the farm. Hillary got caught facing unexpected competition after Super Tuesday. While Obama pulled a stunning turn-around after Wright Part 1, even if he lacked quite enough foresight to nip that bud back when he disinvited Rev. Wright at the very start.

In a strange twist of fate, that's one time he *really* should have valued his opinion more and done what the Rev. told him to.

[Truth]

"For the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" cannot be equivocated - walker

Yes they should not have recorded her personal telephone conversation and ... oh wait .. she said that as the main speaker of a campaign rally for Barack Obama about why he should be President. It wasn't her only statement that will be taken to task either. Taken out of context? She was referring to the voter turn out? Didn’t we just talk about McGovern rallies? I am under no delusion that she meant something other than what she said, twice. I don’t have a problem with him defending her (he’s human), but to say his surrogates can go out and say whatever they want with impunity is naïve.

"Given that Teresa Heinz-Kerry was eventually bullied into releasing her tax returns " - why did you use the word bullied if it is something that should be status quo?

"$2 million dollar income 'elitist', while she laughs her way to the bank with $109 million in taxed income. ... justification for that sordid affair that will somehow exonerate Clinton,"

1) I'm not sure you understand what the word elitist means. 2) I have nothing to exonerate. If you associate making money with something to apologize for, then that actually shows your faults, not hers.

Joe, the fact that McCain is reaching out to those in the middle should worry Democrats. I’m seeing too much “in the bag” talk by extreme Obama supporters and you know that is not a good way to approach this. I thought 2000 & 2004 were in the bag. Fool me twice, and I’ll go for a thrice. Not gonna, uh, fool me hindsight.

The recent elections were for "Reagan Democrats" over "Bush Republicans". If you read those elections as just a rejection of Republicans, you are missing half the story. Ignoring that part would hurt Obama (is hurting Obama). McCain is learning from the lesson (ref: Joe link again).

"During the Clinton administration, after the healthcare initiative went down in flames, Hillary returned to a more traditional First Lady role. Look it up. She wanted to claim all the success, but didn't want to release evidence of her involvement. Disingenuous. "

I agree. Disingenuous. You can't tie all the negatives, but refuse the positives of the Clinton era.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/apr/04/more-than-sightseer-diplomacy/

If we want to pretend that the media wasn't constantly talking about Hillary's influence during Bill's presidency, then we are just rewriting history. There are stories about Al Gore wondering who the real Vice President was. It wasn't that long ago, so the whole revisionist history of the 90s is amazing to me. Let’s all claim to be smart, but then play dumb when it doesn’t suit you.

Obama can ignore these issues and then scratch his head as to why certain voters don’t vote for him at his own peril. I hope there are people like me playing Devil’s Advocate for Obama so he can start to win those demographics he needs to become President. I’m arguing common sense, not just from putting myself into a Republican head space. I’ve said he needs to return to his original foreign policy statements and give them depth. That is not a hard right statement.

Belittling Iran, Venezuela & Cuba is a bad move on his part. I can see each of them opening with “You are right. We aren’t the Soviet Union. We are still here.” Osama “Yes, we kicked the Soviet Union’s ass”. It won’t help him if he actually becomes President. To be honest, I think Iran will not become a nuclear threat any time soon because Israel will do what they always do once it gets to a certain point: take out the reactor. Also, you’d have to tread lightly here, but the obvious diplomatic strength to use is Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Have the Middle East countries sign a non-proliferation treaty and recognize Israel’s right to exist in exchange for a US – UN Security Council vote (veto weighted vote) to make Israel adhere to the IAEA. I’m not sure a Palestinian State can ever be agreed to because of “kissing points” and Jerusalem. The reality is the Middle East countries use Palestine as a distraction now. The PLO was kicked out of every neighboring country.

Your comments on public funding were entertaining. The fact that you are defending Obama on this obvious flip-flop clearly shows your lack of objectivity. Public funds limitations:
- Checkoff dollars are given only to Presidential candidates who demonstrate broad national support.
- General election nominees must agree not to accept any private contributions (from individuals or PACs, for example).
- Candidates must promise not to spend more than $50,000 of their own money on their campaign.
- Recipients of public funds must adhere to a limit on total spending.

“Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Obama 2007.

This is a huge and glaring problem to his integrity. If you don’t think this lie didn’t hurt him and won’t be brought up repeatedly during the GE, you are sadly mistaken.

[Truth]

I was correct on the tax returns. 2000-2006 the Obama's combined AGI was 3.9 million. 2007 alone was $4.1 million. I won't attack that, but those that attack the Clintons' wealth have painted yourself in a corner.

In contrast, Clintons earned $244K in campaign year 1992 compared to Obama's $4.1 million campaign year 2008.

The Clinton Foundation should be admired, not attacked.
"In May, 2007, CHAI and UNITAID announced agreements that help middle-income and low-income countries save money on second-line drugs. The partnership also reduced the price of a once-daily first-line treatment to less than $1 per day."

Just one example of many of what the Clinton Foundation has actually accomplished. But I'm sure it was only for the white people in Africa, the Clintons being obvious racists and all.

[suekzoo]

Truth, no one said anything about the work the WJ Clinton Foundation does. That's your spin.

Mine was the the FUNDING should be TRANSPARENT if the Clinton's wish to return to the WH. Period.