75,000 people can’t be all wrong..
May 20th, 2008 | by Dusty |It shows that Americans still have hope in America, this video. Disclosure: It was made by Obama for President. But it doesn’t matter who made it..what matters is that no presidential candidate has ever drawn this many citizens in one place on one day.
39 Responses to “75,000 people can’t be all wrong..”
By Lisa on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Snake Oil salesman. And people are buying it up as fast as they can. He sounds like an infomercial,money for gas, money for food, money for healthcare, and of course he will save the planet, he’ll pay teachers more, raise the minimum wage, and will send all to college. And people buying into him and his shady connectons following him into 3rd world hell!
You think You hate America now?
By steve on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Eh… Obama ain’t gonna harm us either way… I am tolerant of him or McCain as President. It could be worse, Hillary could be winning!!!
This wasn’t West Virginia I bet…
By Dusty on May 20, 2008 | Reply
steve, did you even watch the video..it gives the location.
By Lisa on May 20, 2008 | Reply
I can’t wait for all my free stuff.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Dusty,
Really? How many Americans voted for Bush in ‘04? Compared to the 63 million people who voted for Bush in 2004, everyone of which, I suspect, you think were wrong, considering 75,000 people attending an Obama rally to be wrong is a piece of cake. My guess is, .05 percent of those attending have a clear idea as to Obama’s stated policy prescriptions, or, indeed, have the least desire to know what they are. Blacks are enchanted by the idea of a black president in a nation once tainted by slavery and Jim Crow and continuing racial prejudice having a real chance at the ultimate power, no doubt convinced that he will make a difference for them. Whites are enchanted by the idea of assuaging their historic guilt for slavery, Jim Crow and continuing racial prejudice and proving that Americans are finally getting past all that. Liberals see him as the most progressive of the candidates, and therefore, the most likely to push policies that they will favor and independents buy his centrist posturing in the face of overwhelming evidence that he’s no centrist. Even fewer, I imagine, have a clue as to the likely outcomes of taking what Obama prescribes for the nation.
“Bandwagon” arguments are the vanguard of propaganda that wishes to hide substantive argument. Take, for example, Hitler, who drew equally large numbers of attendees in a nation of much smaller population than America…every one of whom were wrong. How many hundreds of millions of North Koreans call a certifiable maniac “Dear Leader”?
I’m not saying that Obama is Hitler or Kim Jung Il, although Obama shares two qualities with Hitler that can be considered very positive characteristics in a politician: one, both published very honest and revealing books before rising to power and both were riveting speakers and rhetoricians. Just saying that pulling the wool over large masses of people’s eyes is pretty much the job description of a politician so counting heads is no way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong, who’s good for the country and who’s not.
In short, I’m merely debunking bandwagon propaganda.
That is not to say that this size crowd is insignificant. It is, in fact, quite significant. The ascension (for that is what Messiahs do, eventually, after passing through the crucifixion of public and official scrutiny) can begin any time now. Obama will be our next president, I’m convinced of that.
By Dusty on May 20, 2008 | Reply
No candidate for President has ever drawn a crowd of that size in one place and on one day Craig.
By Paul Merda on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Hear, Hear Craig!! 75,000 CAN be wrong.
Just because most people believed that Zeus was the head of the gods 3000 years ago didn’t make it true. I am with Craig in hating bandwagon propaganda…
Sorry Dusty…
By Lisa on May 20, 2008 | Reply
What Craig said was basically what I said in the comment you deleted Dusty only a little more suttle and a little more clarified.
Be careful what you wish for. Remember the Carter years.
By Dusty on May 20, 2008 | Reply
You folks can call it whatever you want. Note that there are 75K worth of voters that were more than willing to STAND LIKE SARDINES in order to listen to Obama speak.
I have not voted for Obama. I voted for Kucinich in the CA primary. I am skeptical of most politicians and their values.
I was amazed at the turnout. How are 75,000 people part of the propaganda? No one herded them there. No one made them come or promised them anything except to hear him speak when they arrived.
The positive side of my brain tells me that Obama is getting people out to listen…that should be a good thing in a nation where not even 50% of our registered voters go to the polls in any election.
By Jet Netwal on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Ok, I rescued you from the spam filter, Lisa. Let’s cool it on the “hating America” and “fuckwittery” (different post) stuff, kids. It’s not adding much, and we’re sliding down the slope to personal attacks. You all know how Gonzo dislikes personal attacks. Makes his hackles rise.
By Dusty on May 20, 2008 | Reply
A little more subtle? You said I hated America Lisa. I will no longer tolerate your bullshit. It was sent to the spam category…where most of your comments belong…along with Sandy’s
If enough of them are marked as spam..you might possibly not be able to comment any longer..which would be fine with me.
By Jet Netwal on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Yet, I suspect you can sing right along with Alice’s Restaurant, Paul.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Truth be told, Dusty, I was impressed also.
The 75,000 are only part of the propaganda when used, as you’ve used them here in your post: implying that large numbers imply something about them being right. It would be like me saying after the 2004 election, “63 million Americans, more than for any presidential candidate, can’t be wrong!” You would have rejected such an argument, no?
And no one herded them there, no, but I’m a little puzzled at your saying no one promised them anything. They were promised a chance to see the messianic agent of change they can believe in. Heck, as little as I like Barack Obama’s politics, if I had a chance to go to hear him speak, I’d go. Has nothing to do with my support or vote in November. He’s the equivalent of a rock star, a phenom, the promise of hope, of redemption from sins past and present he’s…
Lisa,
Subtlety is important, lack of which got Sandy banned. To my recollection, I’ve never had a comment removed.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Jet, who can’t?
By Paul Merda on May 20, 2008 | Reply
LOL Jet!!
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be at the polls and voting for whatever Dem they throw at me, be it Obama (likely) or Hillary. I just wish we had a system that didn’t just make us choose from the least of two evils every four years but allowed to pick a true leader that is capable of tackling 21st Century issues. It makes me sad
By Paul Merda on May 20, 2008 | Reply
I may have been absent the last few months Craig, but yes you have always added worthwhile comments and focused on the arguement rather than the person. While I disagree with you on many points, ad hominem attacks have no place in a rational debate and that it seems we agree on, no?
By Ken Grandlund on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Certainly 75,000 people CAN be wrong- Craig makes a great example with the votes Bush garnered. And it’s probably true than more than a few of those 75,000 know little more than headlines about Obama.
But here’s where they are RIGHT: They believe that Obama represents a paradigm shift in the business of politics- that he is a leader who actually wants to turn government away from the big money interests and back to the common citizen. His broad base of donors (small donations from many millions versus large donations from a much smaller number) shows that he does connect with the people because he’s trying to do things differently, moving us away from the poisonous “business as usual” way of our political system. He is a different kind of leader (we hope and believe), willing to change the way things are done, and ready to forge a new path for America in this changing world.
As a former Oregonian (10+ years there) I understand how many of these folks think. Oregon is one of the most progressive states in the nation, especially with regards to social positions. They see in Obama a chance to right many of the wrongs of the past several decades, and if not right them, at least halt them before they can cause more harm.
As for Lisa’s theory about Obama promising to give away the farm to everyone- pshaw! Every time a so-called conservative claims that only Democrats buy votes with promises of “welfare” I want to choke. Corporate welfare is fine to them, even handouts to the richest Americans are great for them- so too apparently is the trashing of long held constitutional understandings, international treaties, and small but effective government. Team Bush has blown any GOP claims towards those things and has been the biggest destroyer of American morality ever. Cons like to think that Dems are just Big Brother wannabe’s, but look at what your GOP heroes have turned this nation into- both at home and abroad.
Deny all you like GOPers…pretend that your party has what makes America great…the rest of us will recognize their empty diatribes for what they are. Smoke and mirrors and blatant hypocrisy.
75,000 people can be wrong, but when it comes to looking for a leader with a different attitude and a sense of actual service, they’re right on the money here.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Lisa,
Having read your (once banished) comment, I’d say, yeh…there’s just a wee bit of a subtlety gap between our comments.
That was an example of intentional understatement, by the way…extreme understatement. Sheesh!
By Jet Netwal on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Nice to see you in the threads, Paul.
I think we have decent choices this time. I also feel that when a presidency is faced with a lot of difficult and unpleasant decisions in the term, it helps to rally the troops to sacrifice. Obama is doing this very well, and I think it will be a factor is his ability to do what he needs to do to govern.
By Paul Merda on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Glad to be back… I have missed it mostly because I have been trying to ignore the Presidential race that began, what, 2 years ago???
In any case it will be fun to examine Politics once again.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Yes, Ken is right: it was HILLERY, not Obama, whose Christmas ads depicted all the gifts that she had for America.
And Republicans have been as bad about buying votes as Democrats (it’s called pork-barreling, congresscritters! Run up to the trough and pig out! Try to hold down the squeeling, piglets!). And Bush has been somewhat of a contradiction in terms, at least for American conservatism (as opposed to the European brands): a big government conservative. But then, he warned us of this when he called himself a “compassionate conservative”.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Paul,
Welcome back and yes, you’re right.
By Jet Netwal on May 20, 2008 | Reply
::eyeroll:: He might have been a little clearer about who he was compassionate for, Craig.
Paul, has it been two years? Sweet mercy, I’m aging well.
By Paul Merda on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Ok, I have a bit a problem with exaggeration. It just seems like two years.
By Dusty on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Craig, although I rarely ever agree with you, I do appreciate the method you use to make your points. Well thought out and well written.
Thank you for that Craig.
And I am glad you admitted it amazed you as well.
I am still skeptical of Obama and whether he can deliver all that he promises us. I really can count on one hand the number of politicians I trust these days..and Obama ain’t on ‘that hand’ yet.
Welcome back Paul!
By Craig R. Harmon on May 20, 2008 | Reply
You’re quite welcome, Dusty. Given that Obama ain’t on the ‘trust’ hand yet, just wondering: of the available candidates (no write-ins allowed), if the election were tomorrow, for whom would you vote? Then, allowing write-ins (but given that only three have any chance of election in November), would allowing for write-ins change your electoral choice? If you’re not certain yet, assume that the election is tomorrow, whether you’ve chosen for certain or not…or don’t you vote?
By Dusty on May 20, 2008 | Reply
None of them Craig. I was in Kucinich’s court the day he announced..then I went to Edwards, as I heart his populus message about two America’s.
I usually write in one of my felines..last time it was Scooter Lee..I did not vote for Kerry.
*Scooter was named for anyone but Bush’s Scooter btw.
By steve on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Yes Dusty… Portland….
I am merely alluding to the fact that it is amazing that 75,000 mostly that white people have the educated sense to go watch a Presidential candidate speak as opposed to the West Virginia people, as Steve O shared in a video over the weekend, ignorantly not listening to Obama.
My two cents… we are safe with McCain or Obama as President. McCain Vs Obama could be historical and it is cool to be here to see it.
I fear Hillary jumping independent though and screwing this all up.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 20, 2008 | Reply
I can respect that!
By Dusty on May 21, 2008 | Reply
steve, I didn’t do a headcount on the race of the 75,000 folks that were packed in like sardines to hear the man talk.
But as I said; I find it amazing that many people would turn out for a speech by ANYONE.
Funny you mention Hillary as an Indy..I thought about that a couple of weeks ago..her pulling a Lieberman.
By Jet Netwal on May 21, 2008 | Reply
I don’t see her motivation for that. She still won’t win, and I don’t see her as being much for symbolism.
By Ken Grandlund on May 21, 2008 | Reply
Craig-
Earlier you said, “Whites are enchanted by the idea of assuaging their historic guilt for slavery, Jim Crow and continuing racial prejudice and proving that Americans are finally getting past all that.”
While this may hold true for some, I don’t think it wholly examines the motivation for younger generations of whites, or even some middle agers out there. Personally, while I accept and understand the wrongs done historically to blacks in America, I have no guilt that needs assuaging in that arena and certainly would not throw my political support behind a candidate based on that reasoning. I simply believe what I have stated time and again here, and that is that Obama is the best choice for those who wish to see government turned in a new fashion.
I recently read an article that examined the perceived racial divide among younger (30 yrs and down) Americans, and with some notable exceptions (like gang violence which was racially motivated), the article remarked how these younger folks are much less likely to use race as a primary determining factor when judging individuals, and even less so when looking at our society as a whole.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 21, 2008 | Reply
Ken,
Well, it is a mistake to make blanket statements of this nature. I recall that, oh, maybe six months or so ago, I seriously considered voting for Obama, myself. That was before I’d really investigated Obama’s positions and all and, truth be told, I wasn’t really thrilled about any of the Republican hopefuls. Now, consciously and rationally, I don’t see myself as having guilt over racial problems, either in the past or in the present, so my flirting with voting with Obama wasn’t, consciously and overtly, about assuaging guilt; it was about, as best as I can recall, putting it into words that I may not have even thought consciously at the time, “Wouldn’t that be great! A black man in the White House! After all that blacks have been through!” But I really do think that that’s about guilt. If not personal guilt for sins I’ve committed then about communal guilt about all that white Americans have put blacks through in this country. Guilt is not always an overt, logical or even consciously recognized thing, I don’t think, but I do think it plays a bigger part in the motivations of many white Obama supporters than most would be willing to admit, or even be consciously aware of.
On the other hand, I don’t even pretend to have a handle on what younger people are thinking these days. Just listening to much of the music these days proves just how out of touch I am there.
But I wasn’t really thinking about using race as a factor to judge Obama, since, at least in my case, my flirting with voting for Obama had next to nothing to do with my judgment of Obama. As I tried to indicate, it was about the idea that Obama in the White House represented, about the meaning of that concept for me and American whites, at least as it seems to me. That’s the problem with bunches of people who probably know next to nothing specific about the candidate Obama and his plans for his presidency or the likely results of those plans if put into practice: their vote won’t be about judging Obama as the likely future president, either. It will be about the idea that he projects: change. For most Americans, I sense, that means change from Bush/Clinton but Americans knowing what they want a change from without really knowing what they’re changing to is no more rational than my dalliance with the idea. It’s the old conservative saw: change ain’t always for the better. Therefore if you gotta have change, it should be gradual, by degrees, and similar enough to what we have now to know that if the change is for the worse, we haven’t gone off a cliff but down a gradual drop-off that we can easily turn back from. Whatever Obama might have in mind, it doesn’t strike me as being the gradual, by degrees, familiar kind of change. He strikes me as representing a cliff-type change.
By Jet Netwal on May 21, 2008 | Reply
“Guilt is not always an overt, logical or even consciously recognized thing
You could substitute racism in that sentence perfectly. I am NOT implying anything by that, it just struck me and I’m sharing.
I agree with you Craig that lots of people vote without any kind of indepth knowledge of a candidate. That’s how we got Bush.I also agree that Obama represents a more abrupt change, but that is precisely his appeal. People are looking at the gangrene and thinking “cut this off before it kills me”. Not the thinkers choice, but not accepting the undercurrent of real concern isn’t thinking either.
Personally, I think Obama will put together a good cabinet and will be a decent president considering the shitpile from Bush he has to shovel when he gets there. Having the populace behind him will certainly help.
By Jersey McJones on May 21, 2008 | Reply
I just don’t get anything about Obama’s image! He’s far from a “liberal.” He’s a rather mainstream Chicago Democrat. In all but name he’s a Blue Dog for all intents and purposes. He is not a product of the Civil Rights Movement (proving that the guilt-by association Wright “issue” is a steaming pile of bullshit). I like the way Michelle put it when she said that he’s not really a politician but a rather community organizer trying to use politics to organize. That’s nice. His healthcare plan is really just another cheap political band-aid, though. I tried to read part of his book, but kept falling into a coma. His record is mixed at best, as far as I’m concerned. But I think he’s got something big planned for us - just a gut feeling - and I like it. After all, no one ever imagined that ol’ blue-blooded FDR would be our greatest liberal/progressive president, but sure enough…
I don’t think his supporters know much more about him than his detractors. I mean, if some Republican moron says Obama is a liberal, well, okay, maybe the moron really believes that. I just wonder how many Democrats believe that, or really care. I’m waiting for the Kentucky numbers to come in now. If WV was an indicator, race is all many people see when they look at this man. And that’s a damn shame.
Look, don’t get me wrong. He’s by far my favorite of the the three remaining. But with race clouding everything about him, it seems that everyone - pro, con, and indifferent - are grasping at excuses just to have an opinion of the guy.
This proves my theory on America (we’re a bunch of idiots).
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on May 21, 2008 | Reply
Jet,
I agree with you, completely, about that.
By Steve O on May 21, 2008 | Reply
Economics supersedes race. Just ask the guys on the front lines, they could care less what color their leader is as long as their leader puts their best interest first.
By Paul Merda on May 21, 2008 | Reply
SteveO, I agree. I think it is economic factors that affect things more than race now. Take the OJ Trial for instance, another story about a rich man getting away with murder… If he had been poor, he would have been convicted in days.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 22, 2008 | Reply
Heh! 75,000 isn’t quite so impressive when you know that a free concert preceded the Obama appearance on a gorgeous day. I guess, yeh…they didn’t leave before the Obamessiah appeared but, sans concert, would there still have been a record crowd? Unknowable, I guess, but I’d say unlikely.