It's Official: Obama to Accept Nomination at Invesco Field

The DNCC sent out a press release this morning confirming that the final night of the Democratic Convention, including Sen. Barack Obama's acceptance speech, will take place as Invesco Field instead of the Pepsi Center.

When we said we wanted to 'bring down the walls,' open up this Convention like never before and truly speak to the American people, we meant it," said Leah D. Daughtry, CEO of the DNCC. "On August 28, we will offer grassroots Democrats, who have turned out in record numbers this year, the opportunity to witness history shoulder to shoulder with thousands of Americans standing up for the change our country desperately needs."

The stadium seats 76,000 people. With that size crowd, I think we can expect a pretty big-name rock band to open the event. I did some checking on who's available. Personally, I'd love to see Bon Jovi, but I think more likely possibilities include: Bruce Springsteen, Sheryl Crow, Bonnie Raitt, Melissa Etheridge and Stevie Wonder. [More...]

Good news for Coloradans: a special seating block will be reserved for them.

The DNCC announced today that a special block of "Community" credentials will be reserved for Colorado residents for Thursday night's program at INVESCO Field. Details about how to sign up and receive a "Community Credential" for the last night of the Convention will be released in the coming weeks.

Note to readers: I wasn't around this weekend but I've gotten some emails about commenters bashing Obama in the comments section. Last warning that personal insults and character attacks aren't allowed. Nor is it allowed to use this site as an organizing ground for alternative candidates or movements. Policy and strategic disagreement with Obama is one thing -- we do it freqquently as we see it -- but the same old tired insults have got to go elsewhere.

< Monday Open Thread | Why Flip Flop At All? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Is this a dome (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    It would be pretty funny if it was rained out.

    If I plan a camping trip (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:06:43 AM EST
    to the Denver area, guaranteed it will rain. Any good campgrounds nearby?

    Last stadium concert was in a storm (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:08:08 AM EST
    for me.  A real soaker.  But it was to see Sir Paul, so we just donned ponchos and trash bags (now, several thousand Dems in trash bags might provoke the pundits to unfavorable commentary:-) and withstood the elements for hours.  Very Woodstock.

    But then, we were a lot younger then.  It would have to be the resurrection of the deceased for a revival of the Beatles -- and investment in a very pricy ticket! -- that would bring me out again in bad weather.


    Oh Noes!!11eleven! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:40:19 AM EST
    It might rain?  Please.  We are apparently made of tougher stuff here in Denver--we don't melt when it rains.  In fact, we welcome and thank the gods for any little bit of moisture we get.  

    If this is what it takes to make it rain, bring it on.  


    Ya know (none / 0) (#50)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:43:59 AM EST
    Prince might be a good booking for this. He did a great show in the rain during the 07 superbowl IIRC.

    Purple (none / 0) (#55)
    by eric on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:48:56 AM EST

    Actually, Prince is [gasp] a Republican.


    Then he'd be perfect.. n/t (4.00 / 3) (#80)
    by tree on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    Talk about unpronounceable (none / 0) (#66)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:58:54 AM EST

    Bipartisanship at its best. No. n/t (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:12:58 PM EST
    Hmm.. (none / 0) (#105)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    I'm not sure about that. He seems to be all over the map, politically.

    For example, he has written lyrics against both Gulf War I and the Iraq war. But in the 80s, he also seemed to have hints of pro-Reaganism in his lyrics.

    In any case, I would not call him a Republican.


    Open aired (none / 0) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:02:08 AM EST
    One problem could be the weather. The stadium is open aired, and susceptible to afternoon and evening summer thunderstorms, while the arena is closed to the elements.

    Is this a dome (none / 0) (#6)
    by delacarpa on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM EST
    I was thinking of the same thing as to being rained out. A history making event would be a canidate excepting the nomination and drawing 75,000 Americans without some big band like Bruce, otherwise who knows how many would come to see him.

    No dome (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    Open air, baby!

    Late August is pretty dry out there, I think the odds are firmly against rain.


    I think it is neat (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:59:53 AM EST
    to let the regular folks play ball for once.

    We don't know yet (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    whether it will be regular folks or not.  From the Unity appearance, it's not likely that any non-Obama Dems will be welcome.

    Can they really fill that stadium? (3.66 / 3) (#164)
    by lmv on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    Conventions are long and tiring, no matter how excited you are about a candidate.  Yeah, everyone tries to be there for the big speeches but it sure helps to actually be on site first.  

    How many people are actually going to move venues and how many will just leave?

    So, the DNCC's answer is to fill seats from the community.  Then, why bother being a national delegate, which starts around $3000 a pop for air/hotel?  One of the few perks of being a national delegate (and face it, people, most of you will be faces in the crowd) is having an exclusive ticket to see The Speech.  It's a reward for working your rear off for months and probably spending a lot of your own money.  

    Or, you could just drive to Denver for the afternoon and take in a concert.


    I sure hope (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    we don't diminish Obama on the occasion of his first speech as our nominee to a national audience with a rock concert. On the other hand it could be thought of as "Political Idol" and that genre seems to get very good numbers.

    Not to be a downer but... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by ASDem on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:01:58 AM EST
    There's a danger that we come out looking like the British Labour party in '92 if this thing is too overproduced or self-congratulatory.

    See post on my blog here for links to what I'm talking about.

    And no, I'm not just trying to Pimp My New Blog, just didn't feel like finding the links again. :)

    The evolution to rock star politics (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by eric on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    is complete.

    In 2012, expect the nominee to be picked by "elimination challenge".  

    And Just How Much (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by The Maven on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    will each of the 50-60,000 tickets for the general public cost?  I have to figure that trying to defray some of the convention costs by bringing in paying ticket holders was a significant factor in this decision.

    Call me cynical, but with all the stories floating around about the DNCC's difficulty covering the expense gap, the possibility that this was conceived as a money-raising vehicle seems all too likely (which isn't to say that this is a bad thing in and of itself).

    Free according to the email (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:48:34 AM EST
    they sent around soliciting donations. If you contribute now and win, you could be one of 10 they fly in . . . . . ugh.

    Gambling? In Democratic Party fundraising? (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by jawbone on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    [after observing the gambling tables at Rick's]
    Customer: Are you sure this place is honest?
    Carl: Honest? As honest as the day is long!


    Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
    Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
    [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
    Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
    Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
    Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!


    Interesting move (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by trublueCO on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    I think it will be great to have the chance to attend the acceptance speech. If you've ever been to or seen a Broncos game on TV, the place is absolutely deafening when filled to capacity.

    It will be fun to contrast this event with John McCain's acceptance speech.

    I was just gonna ask about (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    the acoustics at Invesco.

    In 1960, the Kennedy camp had the right idea about going outside to the Coliseum for the acceptance speech, but failed to appreciate how the sounds there in the vastness of that massive stadium tend to get lost and just drift up into the wind.

    Oh, they also failed to fill the place.  But back then, the stadium was configured to hold 100,000, and Kennedy got about 80,000 to attend -- not bad, particularly considering how primitive the event planning was then compared to today.  But occasionally the camera would pan to the far end (about 150 yards, or roughly one political light year away from the action at the peristyle end) and all those empty seats didn't make for a good message or good television.


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by trublueCO on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:54:58 AM EST
    I've been to a few concerts there and the acoustics have been good. It seems that they have the p.a. system set up quite well so I wouldn't imagine it would be a problem.

    Call me upbeat, but I really think that he can fill the entire stadium. I saw him speak at local university back in early February and about 12-15,000 showed up. We completely filled the hockey arena, some adjoining gyms, and most of an outdoor lacrosse stadium. Given that the ratio of Obama to McCain bumper stickers/yard signs (for whatever it is worth) is about 15:1 here in central Denver, I'd say enthusiasm is quite high.


    Not to mention... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:00:19 PM EST
    ...the visuals with downtown Denver to the East and the majestic Rocky Mountains rising to the West at Invesco.  Much better than the walls at the Pepsi Center.

    Pope at Mile High in 1993 (none / 0) (#124)
    by magster on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    The visuals then were very powerful (I think it might have rained too).  Denver has experience with a high security stadium event.  

    Depends on the age of the viewer. (none / 0) (#133)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:36:18 PM EST
    I have to say (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by mikeyleigh on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    I find this venue rather silly and more than just a tad arrogant.  Obama as rock-star accepting the nomination in front of grassroots dems is a fitting book-end companion to Bush as jet pilot trumpeting "mission accomplished" to a crowd of ordinary sailors.  I think I'm beginning to hate larger than life photo-opts.

    Won't that be something... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lambertstrether on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    ... seeing the OFB hold up their lighters and screaming for an encore -- or, I suppose, these days, their cellphones. Democracy in action!

    The sun on the meadow is summery warm....

    I like the idea to make the acceptance (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    speech at Invesco.  It's a bold move, destined to attract more viewers, and certainly a better investment of resources than the Dems' not very wise idea to try to go to absurd and stupid lengths to make this the most green convention in history.

    And since we were discussing the use of the word 'crow' in the sexist term context in the other thread, it just seems proper to recommend Sheryl Crow for the outdoor festivities.

    Other possibilities:  

    Loyal Dem and patriot Chér.

    ABBA.  Bringing them back together for the first time in a quarter century would be a huge, albeit very costly, feather in the cap for Dems.  Could help with the women/Hillary wing too, since one of their writers, Bjorn Ulvaeus, is HRC-friendly.

    The Byrds.  To honor the city of Denver, they could sing their hit single from the 60s, "One Mile High."

    CS&N.  To sing "Won't You Please Come to Denver."

    Olivia Newton-John, available and used to doing John Denver cover material, to sing his "Rocky Mountain High."

    I don't know much about the green effort (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:43:47 AM EST
    but generally, I prefer making investments in things that might do some good, rather than in pagentry. I think there will be a significant set of voters with whom this display will not sit well.

    Green generally helps local businesses (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:53:20 AM EST
    even more so than just having the event there. I'd say that's a better use of resources than the stadium, but that's just me, a fan of local and sustainable  ;) Went to Farm Aid last fall and everything was green/local/sustainable. It was great, as were the burgers!

    And those voters would include those that (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:56:10 AM EST
    are living below the poverty level, for starters.

    It did bring to mind the Romans (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    and the Coliseum, entertaining the masses so that they might not note the struggles of the poor.:-)

    Bjorn Again! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    The Abba revival band, so aptly named for the faith-based initiators, was my suggestion in Jeralyn's earlier thread.  And especially with the coming summer movie hit, I predict -- Mamma Mia.  

    McCain got the jump on this with his appeal to those among Clinton supporters who are Abba fans, of course.  "There was something in the air. . . ."


    Now I'm supposed to be (none / 0) (#34)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    impressed by ABBA? How shallow do you think we are? I don't care which rock stars, past or present, support which candidate. Since when has being able to sing and play a guitar made someone an expert in politics? If I wasn't already so disgusted, this comment might have been funny.

    This reply was to you, Cream. (none / 0) (#35)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    If you like ABBA, then ABBA it is.  8^)

    wasn't to you, sorry (none / 0) (#36)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    Well, now, I'm thoroughly confused (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    as to what ws or wasn't addressed to me, but no prob.  I am an Abba fan, yeh -- belatedly, but a girlfriend recommended it as the best music evah to which to do housecleaning or other tasks requiring an injection of energy, and she was right.  So I made my daughter an Abba fan, too, and it brings back a lot of shared memories for both of us.

    All that aside -- c'mon, mom, you have quite a sense of humor here that I've seen.  So you gotta like the idea of Bjorn Again for Obama's stage show. :-)


    I assume someone (none / 0) (#52)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    was trying to address something to me about the Abba suggestion.  But hey, I was having some fun in that post, or trying to anyway.  It's been a grueling slog this election and I don't want to forget about keeping things light once and a while.

    Abba would be quite a coup for Dems -- but it's not gonna happen.  They've already said they won't regroup and recently turned down a BILLION DOLLAR offer to do that.  Though I do like the suggestion for the next best thing, the Bjorn Again cover group.

    No guilt feelings from this hetero guy for liking their music.  Somehow their songs manage to hit the sweet spot, and the songwriting is getting to be more appreciated than it was in the 70s by those fancy and cranky music critic elitist types. The simple folks Chez Brodie like ABBA.

    As for shallowness and the rest, well that can be said of any entertainment act or figure.  But in the case of the ABBA foursome, they strike me as all being liberal and socially responsible small-d democratic types.



    I read a piece recently (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:00:56 PM EST
    on the songwriting that resonated -- that it was a model of usage of the English language to be memorable, that Abba songs stuck in the brain immediately owing to the basic vocabulary.

    I am considering putting together study terms for my courses that resemble Abba lyrics.  "There was something in the air that night, when Congress addressed the plight of the territory/So it passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, banning slavery and promoting public education, but that wasn't the end of the story. . . ."



    Wasn't Cher (none / 0) (#37)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:29:22 AM EST
    a vocal Hillary supporter? Heh

    So soon after the Olympics (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:16:22 AM EST
    which always means stunning stadium pageantry, I wonder whether this is setting up comparisons in the mindset of media punditry that cannot be matched.  

    Then again, it probably will mean that the flagwavers among the punditry will get to make all sorts of pointless "so there, China!" comments.

    Well, my first reaction was "rock star." (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:17:08 AM EST
    Something about this just doesn't sit right with me, but maybe I'm just bitter.  

    Let's don't forget that the last two elections were about who you'd want to have a beer with.  

    Busing in college students? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:29:26 AM EST
    Otherwise, why do locals need reserved tickets? Places to stay all booked so unlikely many average Dems would travel there. Suppose they will have to build another "free speech" cage onsite.

    What is the expected convention attendance anyway?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#46)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:37:28 AM EST
    The 2000 Census puts the Front Range population at 2,362,308.  Not all of us are going to the Convention or even volunteering.  Why would they have to bus people in?  

    There are an awful lot of Denverites who would probably go just to say they were there.  


    1st night of college football on tv (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    and some other counterprogramming was noted in the earlier thread.  Plus the weariness of Denverites by then with a week of upheavel in everyday lives, etc.  And Jeralyn said that you Denverites will be avoiding going downtown that week.  Remind me, please:  Is the stadium downtown, too?  (I hope it's not near your airport -- that was a loooong ride.)

    Invesco is... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    ...next door to the Pepsi Center.  

    Those who can afford it will stay away from downtown during the Convention.  Some of us will have no choice as we have to work to keep our homes, pay for our health insurance, afford gas, etc.  

    I see it as a nice way of rewarding the locals with putting up with the Convention.  


    That works well, then (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:16:36 PM EST
    and in another convention town, I hear you.  The world's largest music festival just ended here after its annual 11-day run.  We locals can reclaim our lakefront and downtown and favorite restaurants again, at least for a few days.  The next festival begins Thursday night.:-)

    And soon comes the largest convention of the year, every year, when our town is overrun with thousands of life insurance agents.  Bless 'em, though, as they're big spenders.


    Only allowing them a block of tickets. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    My question was why reserve them only a block of tickets when it could be expected that they would be the majority of attendees. You are quick to take offense at nothing.

    Where is the money (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by HenryFTP on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    for this extravaganza? It's expensive enough to mount the Convention in a basketball arena -- they're going to have to duplicate the audio-visual side of this in an outdoor venue so that the whole thing works on television.

    Maybe the Obama team has already worked all this out with its Hollywood network, but they're asking a lot of an already media-challenged Party to stage manage both a Convention coronation and a mass rally for the acceptance speech for modern-day short attention-span gasbag-bloviated prime-time television.

    TV Networks are apparently (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:03:52 PM EST
    in an uproar because they'll have to fund and staff broadcast facilities at two locations.

    He really cannot afford (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by HenryFTP on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    to permit the TV networks to do a poor job covering either venue. I think the campaign will have to stump up significant dollars to make sure that the networks have good pictures to choose from, with audio suitable for the small screen. If he sounds like he's delivering a speech in a football stadium, that won't play very well.

    At the very least, his objective is to get the television gasbags to ooh and aah. I don't know how events like this play with the American public -- I persist in thinking that we're too diverse in our tastes to be taken in by a slickly-produced outdoor rally. These sorts of spectacles have overtones of mass politics that are more European than American -- our great mass spectacles have historically been much more extemporaneous and unruly, like Dr King's 1963 rally on the Mall and old-fashioned Party Conventions. But maybe the immediate popular reaction won't matter much so long as television replays the sound bites as something "transformative" and "inspiring".

    It seems too risky an undertaking to me, but I'm clearly not the target audience. Maybe it will have a galvanizing effect on that significant group of Americans who rarely participate in elective politics. After all, that could be at least as decisive a factor in battleground states as Republican "wedge" issues and dog-whistles.


    Well considering (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    the fact that Obama still has a few million left in his primary war chest and that he would not longer be able to use that money after the Convention, it would seem a good place to spend the remaining cash, especially there aren't that many costs for the campaign for the next month or so.

    And of course the campaign will continue to ask for "donations" for hats and buttons and other Convention chotckis.  Perhaps even ask for a donation to attend the speech itself.

    I sure do love the use of the word coronation.  It does such a nice job of delegitimizing the process, doesn't it?  I guess theft doesn't fit?


    No, not deligitimizing (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    just sneering.  He already deligitimized himself by his tactics long ago.

    Bad optics (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    I understand the goals of this move, but I'm bothered by how easily the Republicans can mock it.  This is one event that will definitely look bad once the usual suspects in the blabosphere get their meat hooks into it.

    The one thing the Dems don't want to do is turn the age difference between the candidates into a Republican advantage, and this venue change risks that, in my opinion.  "Do you want a president who thinks he's on American Idol, or someone with a long history of serving his country in the military and the US Senate?", etc.  Right now, Obama has an edge based on relative age--he's young and vibrant and fist bumpy.  By comparison, McCain looks like yet another verse in the same old song.  The Dems should be very careful about not throwing away that advantage.

    I totally disagree (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    McCain is going to read his boring teleprompter speech in front of a GOP base that doesn't even like him much, while Obama is going to give a speech in a packed football stadium.

    And you think the media will make Obama look bad?

    There will be endless commentary about the charisma gap between Obama and McCain and the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans. That will damage Republican morale.

    Say what you want about the Obama campaign, but they know their marketing.


    you're assuming (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    that the Media will be in Obama's Camp.  History has shown us time and time again that that's very rarely the case.

    I still anticipate the Press digging into Obama like gangbusters come Convention Time and non-stop afterwards.  A more seasoned, talented, thick-skinned politician could handle it.  I don't that Obama will be able to.

    Ergo, McCain goes into the Fall relatively unscathed while Obama's reeling ... just as the Media planned.


    it is just so very tiring (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tben on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:13:43 PM EST
    to constantly read all these "big, bad media conspiracy" comments.
    Sorry, but "the media" do not act in a coordinated manner, and they do not control America.

    ROTFLMAO. (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    Which reality do you live in?

    obviously a very different (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by tben on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    one than you do, thank goodness.

    Media conspiracies, like all other forms of conspircay thinking, are really crude efforts to try to make sense of a complicated world. What better way than to imagine a single, coherent force behind the scenes that pulls all the strings and makes all the puppets dance.

    I hope I am not too disrespectful to religous people here, but it seems to be the same impulse that causes people to posit some heavenly force that directs all human destiny. Apparantly many people find it comforting to imagine that the full diverse range of events in the world are under the control of some singular force - even if it is working against them - it can be understood as a singular evil force.

    Unfortunatly, that is not the way the real world works. The "media" are incredibly diverse in this country and there is no single agenda. Given how many people these days get there news from blogs, a lot of the more popular blogs should be included in "the media". They are all over the map.


    And yet (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    you're the only one who brought up the idea of a literal media conspiracy.

    The media (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:24:30 PM EST
    doesn't act in a coordinated manner?!? Are you kidding me? Did you sleep through the primary?

    You have a rude awakening coming.


    Imitation/echoing isn't "coordination." (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    There's no Big Bad Media Cabal meeting to predetermine coordinated coverage.  That idea's nothing but tinfoil hattery.

    Congratulations (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:32:53 PM EST
    on becoming the second poster to kick the stuffing out of that particular strawman.

    You must not have a TV (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    or read any newspapers, then.  Do they control America?  No.  But they certainly have a huge role in shaping what people think and the way they think.

    It cannot be that you have forgotten how the media helped George Bush sell the Iraq war.  And you must have forgotten why it was that such a large percentage of people believed Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks - and that some still believe that: because the media gave the Bush administration a megaphone to get that message out and never pushed back on it.  Do you not think people like Judith Miller were part of the propaganda that helped millions of people support a war?

    I can't believe you don't see the pernicious effect the media have on people's lives.


    I didnt say (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by tben on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    that some of the media, including some of the more popular, and hence powerful outlets, do not have any power to influence the course of public understanding - of course they do.

    That is, though, a very different thing than saying that the "media" is a coherent force, executing well planned agendas to elect certain candidates or even to drive policy agendas.


    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    that media conspiracy theories of coordinated behavior are tinfoil hat silliness.

    However, there is a very strong pack mentality, as I'm sure you've noticed now and then.


    Remember how in 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    the podium was made to look like a cross?
    Seeing as McCain has problems with teleprompters and his stature is diminished by the presence of something as innocent as a podium, I wonder what the designers will come up with this year.
    A windscreen designed to replicate a jet fighter cockpit, a barbecue pit arrangement or something buslike perhaps.

    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:44:37 AM EST
    Obviously this is a good thing -- notwithstanding the hand-wringing over manufactured, too-concerned-by-half issues such as comparison to the Olympics and the supposed expense of what is in reality just another stadium rally (as done over and over by Obama and Hillary) -- but I'm not sure why we are bringing rock stars into it. It's unnecessary and simply goaded commenters into more "rock star politics" comments. It's a stadium, stadiums simply have tons more seating and provide better optics, this has nothing to do with rock stars.

    I find this a more sensible approach (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:08:39 PM EST
    -- that it's a larger venue but still a convention.  And isn't there always some convention business, some other speakers and such, on the last night?  

    strip away all the glitz (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    and glitter and you're still left with a ho-hum candidate whose confidence -- and that of the DNC -- in his own campaign can be judged by how much window dressing he throws up to hide the fact he may be lacking.

    If you have a good show, you don't need much to sell it.  The more bells-and-whistles, the more suspicious people become.

    This is a GOP joke waiting to happen.

    And whoever mentioned Hillary's Top Donors being resistant to Obama hit the nail on the head.  I know a few personally, and there's no way in h-e-double hockey sticks they're going to give to him.  They're saving their eggs for Hillary's 2012 basket.

    screw those donors (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Panhandle on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:36:45 PM EST
    any donor that feels the way you describe I prefer NOT to donate to my party's candidate. They obviously aren't supporting any party position, they obviously don't support the Democratic direction for the country, and it seems pretty obvious they just want to buy access and favor.

    oh get real (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:42:13 PM EST
    access and favor?  they've known and been feted by Presidents since Reagan (and one since Carter) and, regardless of who's in Office, will have no trouble getting "access".

    They just don't like Obama!  They have a lifetime of recognizing swindlers and sycophants whose interest is purely financial and they smelled him coming a mile away.  They have -- nor do any of us -- no obligation whatsoever to give anything to a Party which has decided to bastardize it's core beliefs, stab the last successful Dem President in the back and bend over backwards to help Bush shred the Constitution.

    Not all of us blindly follow, mouths agape and eyes glazed over with hero worship, the (D) into the voting booth.  In fact, Obama should be worried about those of us who think for ourselves, have strong BS radars and are still waiting to be convinced he's in it for "us" and not just "him".


    my mistake (none / 0) (#150)
    by Panhandle on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    I thought you were referring to Democratic donors

    No, your mistake is thinking (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by tree on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    that every Democratic donor thinks that Obama is a Democrat, and not Republican lite. Why should a Democratic donor contribute to someone that they don't think is a true Democrat? If you can understand that, you can understand their actions.

    you hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:02:59 PM EST
    those I know don't like Obama and don't believe he has a clue what he wants to do FOR the American People.  In meetings, he talks about his Presidency in very personal terms eg. "I hope to take advantage of the opportunity this offers me", but it's rarely anything like "I want to get people working again" or "I want to do what I can to help people have access to health care".

    It seems to be framed from an "Obama perspective" and not an "American People pespective".  And they're just not impressed.

    A friend of mine told me afterwards that when she talked to him on the phone in mid-June (they're first and only conversation), she asked him what his top priority would be as President and he responded "well, what do you think it should be?"  He didn't even try to offer a stock answer, just a "well, what would YOU like?" attitude.  She was floored and got off the phone fairly quickly after that.

    They just feel no obligation to give to this man.  And probably won't.  


    no problem (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    what many don't realize is that it's very rare people or families with large sums of money give exclusively to one Party.  Oftentimes, their money goes to both -- very hush hush and under the radar, of course.

    Those who've donated to Obama -- I'm referring to large donors -- have also given to McCain and vice versa.  It's just the way it is.


    Exactly what party position is that? (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:39:03 PM EST
    Is it the party position reflected by Obama and Dem leadership support of the Bush Cover Up and Elimination of Rights (FISA) bill, the position that a woman needs to form a committee consisting of  medical personnel, family members and clergy when deciding on an abortion, or that women use the excuse of feeling down to get an abortion that they shouldn't be allowed to have? Is it the position that more taxpayer money should be spent on expanded faith base initiative programs complete with a Secretary of Faith (even Bush didn't go that far), school vouchers, or the reversal of the 2005 Democratic position that No Crisis Existed in Social Security to Social Security is in crisis and is put back on the table? How about the position that mandates are evil (Harry and Louise ads) even though Obama's non-universal health care program contains mandates? How about the position that Republicans have better ideas on government regulations or teacher's pay?

    Funny as a person in my sixties and until just recently a life long Democrat, I don't support those positions either.


    he is not a ho-hum candidate (4.00 / 4) (#100)
    by tben on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:18:31 PM EST
    except to those who consider him so, and they are the minority voice within the party.

    I must say though, that your comment is the first one I have seen that has accused Obama of a lack of confidence.

    I just get the impression that you are just trying to find something negative to say that will stick against this guy - irrespective of whether it makes any sense at all.


    *yawn* (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    Obama sure brings out the ho-hum in you, though!

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    it is a bit frighteningly predictable, isn't it?  Although I do love the 1 Ratings I get.  Let's me know I hit a nerve and am on the right track!  :-)

    No rock stars... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by mike in dc on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:58:35 AM EST
    ...at most, perhaps one musician like Stevie Wonder playing an appropriate song in or out.  "Higher Ground" comes to mind.  Football fans are in and out within 4 hours total.  So there should maybe be one or two performers, a warm up speaker to intro Obama, and then the Big Speech.  It should not resemble a rock concert.  The last thing you want is half the crowd showing up to hear one of the musicians and then leaving afterwards.  If they did an event with a half hour lead in (Stevie sings the SSB and one song, then a speaker comes out to give a 20 minute intro and biopic for Obama), a one hour Obama speech, and a half hour outro(Stevie sings "Higher Ground" and Obama shakes hands with a few hundred people), it could work really well.  

    NOT a one-hour Obama speech (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:10:22 PM EST
    -- no way.  This is being done for tv.  20 minutes.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:14:16 PM EST
    Also depends on who the TV audience is going to be.  Who is going to be glued to their TV on the Thursday before Labor Day and who is going to be travelling or out partying? Know where those college kids will be - watching college football - either on TV or at the games.

    And if there is a band or singer, well, all I can say is that my 66 year old parents don't stick around to watch the halftime show of the Super Bowl (or the pregame either) because the music is too loud and they don't like it. And if they have someone playing who is familiar to the "kids" (ala American Idol), do you think this kind of thing will get people to watch and stick around for his "Greatest Acceptance Speech" ever?


    Stevie Wonder... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:14:29 PM EST
    fuel for the anti-Obama fire...just asking for image trouble.  

    It's not even subliminal...a popular black man lacking vision and unable to see...?

    He can sing up a storm, tho.


    He just did a concert in my town (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    and I've got to disagree a bit.  Wonder is a draw for one and all and sings a message of harmony.

    There are a lot of bands that come here and can be counted on to end with arrests and even violence.  But a Stevie Wonder show brings out the best in everyone.

    Plus, he enjoys doing duet appearances.  I am betting on a multicultural combination -- if a rock concert, it is to be.  (I still rather hope not.)


    Not dissing Stevie... (none / 0) (#137)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:37:27 PM EST
    I'm talking about Obama's image...not Stevie's.

    It's a metaphorical thingy, as the college kids say.  (Well, some of the college kids).


    I think it's excessive also in light (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:00:40 PM EST
    of where the country is at these days. And arrogant on any given day . . . .

    This is not the kind of thing that impresses (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by eric on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    me, but if you look at the public to which this in aimed, it makes perfect sense.  These people watch American Idol, they listen to insipid manufactured music, and they are generally impressed by big popular-appearing things because they just love to follow like little sheep.

    Wow, I'm jaded.

    So how much is this going to cost? (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    And who is going to be footing the bill for the clean up...not to mention the traffic, security, parking, and the other stuff involved?

    You are, Kredwyn... (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    if you give to Obama or to the Party, you are paying for it.

    Then they better find someone else... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:26:49 PM EST
    I'm working two different jobs--simultaneously--this summer just to get my car's radiator fixed and pay rent.

    Donating to presidential candidates is not even on my list of things that need paying for.


    The cost is a bargain (4.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    The event is going to draw a huge television audience and press coverage.  It would cost ten times more to buy that kind of publicity through normal means.

    As always, the Obama team is brilliant.


    If you read (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:15:32 PM EST
    Jeralyn's words in this diary you will see that she strictly forbids linking to organizing sites pushing for alternative candidates.  

    Discussing the warts is one.  Politicking for someone other than the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party is quite another.

    Dolly Parton (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:20:01 PM EST
    She'll have finished up most of her "Backwoods Barbie" tour by then.  She can even push her scheduled August 10 Denver date back a few weeks and there we go.

    Here's who should open the show (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:24:44 PM EST
    Green Day doing "American Idiot".

    But only in a mad dream could that occur.  

    That could get me to tune in ;) (none / 0) (#157)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    If I could rate this a 10 (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:30:56 PM EST
    I would. Anne hits it, exactly. There's something really inappropriate, very bread-and-circus about staging a Lollapallooza-style celebration rally at the convention when the economy is tanking, average people are suffering, and soldiers are in harm's way. Not to mention that there's a big segment of the electorate (senior citizens, for instance) that isn't going to "get" such an event. A convention that's supposed to bring Dems together will end up segmenting them--and while we're on that subject, how do you program a musical event to please the cultures and tastes of everyone in the Tent, from Latinos to African-Americans, to the elderly? Bruce Springsteen and Cher aren't going to cut it. (I won't tune in unless they invite Caetano Veloso AND a Banda group, myself!)

    Do the big rally, but save it for the campaign trail. Let the Democratic convention be a convention.

    But isn't that the point (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by dk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:41:19 PM EST
    (other than creating footage for campaign commercials)?  Make everyone forget that this is a convention.  Make everyone forget that no candidate, for the first time in a long time, obtained the necessary number of pledged delegates to guarantee him/her the nomination.  Make everyone forget that the Superdelegates are deciding this nomination, and that, despite their public pronouncements beforehand, the only thing that matters is how those Superdelegates vote ON THAT NIGHT.

    As I wrote elsewhere in the comments, it is a sad but perhaps fitting end to the undemocratic turn for the Democratic party.


    as I wrote earlier (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM EST
    the more bells and whistles involved, the more likely -- they desperately hope -- that people will forget how Obama limped over the finish line with a very undemocratic assist from his goons at the DNC.

    Make him seem "inevitable" and perhaps the lemmings ... sorry, the voters will just blindly pull the (D) lever or push the (D) button on the touchscreen come Election Day.  No issues or policy necessary.  Just memories of a kick-a** rock band, thousands of screaming people and a fancy light show with lasers and stuff.



    Thin Air? (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by talex on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:34:00 PM EST
    How is an actual event thin air?

    I notice it didn't take long for the loyal to dig up excuses for Obama's undignified circus.

    The convention center and National TV was not enough for him.

    I think it is hilarious (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:35:17 PM EST
    that the DNC manages to diss Hillary supporters even in their mailing. The "grassroots" are the ones who nominated Obama.

    What alternate reality do these fools occupy? The one with the most Democratic votes was Hillary, not Obama.

    Not buying the spin, DNC.

    and yet the wonder (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:45:11 PM EST
    why Hillary's Top Donors aren't returning their insistent, plaintive phone calls.

    Thus, the "weeding out" (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    of Clinton supporters from the grassroots?  

    Ah well, nobody said it would be a bed of roses.:-)  


    A couple of suggestions for entertainment: (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    *  Bob Dylan singing "Blowing in the Wind"
    (for the title only)

    *  Peter, Paul and Mary "Kumbaya"  (for obvious reasons)

    Venue is one thing. Program is another. (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    As I said below, stadium shmadium.  

    Jeralyn, as I recall -- not Obama campaign -- raised the issue of whether they could fill so many more seats, and she wondered whether the answer would be, again as in Portland, for the campaign to tie the event into a rock concert to bring out the crowd.

    A lot of the concern here that you see is about the program.  Will it be a convention's last night or a rock concert, and if both, will the two come together in a way that really appeals to voters needed?  (Note, those are not the rank-and-file Obama voters, already bagged; voters needed are not necessarily looking for a rock star.)

    In 2004 (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    The DNC had John Mellencamp, the Black Eyed-Peas, Willie Nelson and Carole King perform at the Convention.

    In 2000 Stevie Wonder, Melissa Etheridge, Luther Vandross, Mary Chapin Carpenter, and Boyz II Men played.

    Musical performances are a tradition at Democratic Conventions.

    Barack Obama didn't just come up with the idea out thin air.

    Although I will give you kudos for recognizing that Jeralyn is the one speculating on this.


    Correction (none / 0) (#195)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    Jeralyn didn't just come up with the idea from thin air.  

    Sometimes my fingers do not check in with the brain to verify what to type. :)


    What's the Convention Theme? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by NealB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    At the convention in 2004 Kerry sprung, without much warning, his new campaign where he was running as a Viet Nam swift-boat hero vet. The only ones with advance knowledge of it seemed to be the opposition's Swiftboat Veterans for Truth group and it was their cue to unleash the campaign that swamped Kerry's chances to win the Presidency.

    I think it's grand that Obama's going to stage his big moment in a 75,000 seat stadium. Just so the DNC/Obama campaign is careful not to use the moment to introduce us to a New Improved Obama that stamps him with an identity that the RNC and it's minions use to destroy his candidacy. The trap, of course, could be the event itself.

    Comparisons of Democrats to mindless mobs blindly following a charismatic leader come to mind. Doubtless there is available footage of tens of thousands raging to destroy America in the presence of Taliban leaders in Iran that could be used for that comparison.  How many other ways could McCain's Republicans use the rollout of Obama as the "rock-superstar" of American politics to destroy him?

    Nah. Republicans would never do something like that.

    Another brilliant move..... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:04:25 PM EST
    .....by the sharpest campaign organization in recent memory.  I just signed on and have not read any of the commentary here yet, but let me guess that the TL Obama bashers are somehow finding fault with the plan.

    You are the last person (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    who should be talking about other commentors behaving predictably.  The absolute last.

    On a slow news day (3.00 / 3) (#197)
    by tree on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:15:30 PM EST
    I'm sure we'll hear that Obama had a bowel movement and it was a truly "brilliant" one by the sharpest campaign ever!

    I have mixed emotions on this (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    If it is a rock concert, it takes something away from the pagentry of being on stage with all the big time political people. Not that the kids will not recognize Robert Byrd and other notable Democrats. Will they have the silly Donkey hats and other unusual hat wear? It might get people watching it just to see the wave.

    I do see their desire for this as it makes it look like a enormous crowd just like they did before during the primary. They made it look like Hillary had a small crowd but Obama had 75,000 there. It seemed to work especially without not mentioning that there was a concert also. On a side note, it would be funny if all of a sudden the people did a 8th inning beat the traffic exit. This should be interesting.

    What's wrong with popular music (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:19:54 PM EST
    I mean MLK had Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and Peter Paul and Mary follow him after delivering the I have a Dream speech. You can see Bob's performance at that speech in Direction Home.

    The Democrats have had Mellancamp and Willie Nelson perfrom at previous conventions as I recall. Come to think of It the Allman Bros did benefits for Jimmy Carter and performed at his inaugural along with Arlo.

     What's wrong with popular music?  What's up with the elitism you are displaying?

    How vulgar (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    With the plight of the American people with gas prices and insurance, and the troops over in the Middle East, this is akin to when Bush had his lavish inauguration balls and parties in 2005.

    Nice to see the DNC and Obama have such a flagrant display. What a COMPLETE turn-off.

    Veracitor (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:29:16 PM EST
    It's August 28th...just before the Labor Day weekend holiday. I think you're overestimating the viewing audience #s just a tad.

    And considering that Denver/CO Dems were having difficulty funding the "normal" convention stuff, this seems far more expensive.

    Cool....... (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by delacarpa on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    that is good news. Let them knock theirself out because what we need is a rock star president. Entertainment by whoever that will draw in enough to fill it up. Obama paying for everything, but without my help.

    Obama and the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by lizpolaris on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:10:20 PM EST
    are apparently intent on turning the Democratic Convention into 'bread and circuses.'  Just put on an entertainment show with the latest cult-like personality to give a speech.  Probably the strategy to try to gain votes by dumbing down the process and trying to make it a cool TV show is as good a PR stunt as any other.  

    Since the entire nominating process turns out to be a sham, certainly the convention will be too - so they may as well make the best photo op they can out of it.

    I hadn't realized that JFK (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by mkevinf on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:36:58 PM EST
    gave his acceptance speech at L.A.Memorial Coliseum, so this move is another attempt at linking Obama to JFK, although it conjures up other images in my head as well - I HAVE met Obama supporters who spoke of a Movement, as in a spiritual movement.  And they were also virulently anti-Hillary, because God needs the Devil for contrast.

    As for the rock bands, there's always entertainment at these conventions - a lot country-western at the GOP convention, not that there's anything wrong with that.  The networks don't usually cover a whole lot of that stuff, although obviously C-Span would.  At any rate, I've seen enough wall to wall coverage of past conventions to know that they are in large measure very mundane affairs, hardly a sacred act in a sacred place.

    But this is America, where the bigger the better, no matter the quality.  I'm glad the Europeans will be impressed; it's very important that we impress them.

    I'm Tempted (5.00 / 0) (#221)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:28:04 PM EST
    It's the rare occurrence in recent memory for a nominee, or a president, to be seen in public much less in front of 75,000 people. Our current Bush Bubble Boy is just an exaggeration of where we have been headed for sometime.

    The only time I had the pleasure of seeing a future president speak other than on television was Jimmy Carter on an outdoor stage on Miami Beach. I would suspect 75,000 tickets would go very fast. It's the chance to see the presumed soon to be president without having to donate $5000 a plate or being a party insider.

    Even though I've taken a Floridian "sorry no money for anyone this year" stance, I'm almost tempted to throw in $5 to enter the raffle and to take my daughter who will be voting for her first time this November. A few nights in Denver for a round trip all expenses paid trip for two and a once in a lifetime shot to see an acceptance speech is a better deal than a a supersized Big Mac Value Meal I'm about to blow that $5 on.

    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by dichiara on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:30:38 PM EST
    I just heard McCain will have a similar event at Ebbets Field.

    I think it's a good idea. (4.50 / 4) (#70)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:00:50 PM EST
    It goes along with one of his campaign themes of involving the "American People" rather than the usual insiders who normally get access to these things.  I think the media will eat it up (and as we've seen--media coverage is king regardless of whether they get it right or wrong).  Those who already don't like him or his candidacy will no doubt try to use "rock star" as a pejorative term and try to paint this as an egocentric move and say he is out of touch.  The O campaign can easily turn that and say he is more in touch by being more inclusive and inviting more people to the party.  

    It Is Looking (4.40 / 5) (#78)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:06:42 PM EST
    Like the inconsolable ones are acting like elitists snobs here, thumbing their noses at a popular mass event in a low brow stadium. Must be that they would prefer a more elegant upperclass tasteful event, and Obama is disappointing them by choosing to celebrate the power of the people who will take back our country by voting overwhelmingly Democratic in November.

    You're dismissing the difference (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    between the venue and the event.  Stadium, shmadium.  The concern is that it become a rock concert, when it ought to remain at last somewhat a convention's last night.  There are other matters involved in that, and others involved, always, and for good reason.:-)

    It Is A Celebration (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:22:04 PM EST
    And gathering of forces. The function is to power up the party for November. It is the Democratic Convention and a party celebrating our power. It could not be a rock concert anymore than the popemobile could be confused for a taxicab.

    I see no reason.... (none / 0) (#194)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:11:14 PM EST
    why we can't make the convention fun and entertaining with some music.

    I mean the speakers can bullsh*t us with empty rhetoric alone, or they can bullsh*t us accompanied by a performance by Bruce Springsteen.  At least if Springsteen performs some truth will be heard that night.


    No, we're not being (4.00 / 3) (#108)
    by mikeyleigh on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    elitists.  Some of us just prefer a candidate who knows his place in history and that place is in front of the Democratic Convention that nominated him giving his acceptance speech.  Really quite simple.

    How Uppity Of Obama (2.71 / 7) (#113)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:24:49 PM EST
    He just doesn't know his place. Looks like you may have a few things to learn about "Change".



    MLK have a rock band in D.C. (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:36:18 PM EST
    before the "I Have a Dream" speech?  Seriously, I don't remember.  But I doubt it.

    There are voters who want to know that the White House in the hands of Dems would conduct itself with dignity.  So it is a fine line to negotiate.  That's all.


    Peter, Paul & Mary (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    were there that day, and sang "If I Had A Hammer."  Dunno about rock, but in 63 rock 'n' roll was very shallow and apolitical.  

    So, there's a fine tradition of mixing song with politics.

    Plenty of musicians at the massive antiwar rallies of the 60s, too.


    Yes, musicians, you bet (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    as I was at a lot of those rallies.  But it was not  a rock 'n' roll light show.  And the songs always had social messages.  I think that would be great.

    I think Jeralyn's idea (as it is still from her and not the DNCC, I think) of a rock band is the problematic part -- at a point when Obama will need to project maturity, dignity, and such characteristics of a president to the voters he still will need.  


    OK (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:09:59 PM EST
    But this is a celebration and a biiiiig party. Not comparable to a civil rights rally in 1963, imo., although I do see your point, even if it is a stretch.

    I am sure that there will be seriousness involved and I am all for content regarding rallying musical messages.


    Nice Point (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    I did not know that. It goes to show that a band performing at a political event does not turn it into a Rock Concert.

    Peter Paul & Mary (none / 0) (#198)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    Peter Paul and Mary still do concerts today and if you ever get a chance they are worth attending just to see the variety of people in the audience. Everything from the stereotypical Viet Nam era hippy to little girls that spend their mornings listening to Peter Paul and Mommy Too.

    They do their concerts in great places too. They will be at Carnegie Hall in December.

    I vote for Jimmy Buffett to entertain before things get going but Invesco isn't nearly big enough for a free Jimmy Buffett show.


    Poor Analogy (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:40:43 PM EST
    MLK's dream speech was not about celebrating a victory.


    King's delivery of the speech on August 28, 1963, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement. Delivered to over two hundred thousand civil rights supporters, the speech is often considered to be one of the greatest and most notable speeches in history and was ranked the top American speech of the 20th century by a 1999 poll of scholars of public address.

    But (1.50 / 6) (#151)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:46:56 PM EST
    I will give it to you, both Obama and MLK are/were black men, if that is the point you were trying to make by your comparison.

    You appear to be on a (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by tree on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    race baiting binge this morning. Why is that?

    The nomination speech... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    is more of a rallying speech than it is a victory speech.

    Or at least, given his seemingly determined efforts, to present a face of "unity" with HRC...the rallying part should be in the fore.


    You brought in race (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    with the "uppity," Squeaks.

    But then, you so often do.


    Not Me (2.33 / 6) (#179)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    Obama does not know his place. WTF is that, if not race baiting? A poor choice of words?  I do not think so.

    The line was... (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by tree on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:19:18 PM EST
    Some of us just prefer a candidate who knows his place in history and that place is in front of the Democratic Convention that nominated him giving his acceptance speech.

    You stretched to make a cheap shot, IMO. Unless you think that making a speech in front of the Democratic Convention is somehow demeaning and belittling.


    And we already had the victory speech (none / 0) (#186)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    in Pig's Eye, Minnesota, as you may recall.  (The historic name of St. Paul.:-)

    The convention speech is still an appeal to the voters.  The next victory speech comes in November.

    Or not.


    Yep, the outdoor stadium is (4.33 / 3) (#115)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST
    not at all a radical or shallow or demeaning move by pols who are in a position to pull it off.  Not all are suitable for the big stage though.  Generally the pol has to be a good to very good speaker else it does become a huge embarrassment in stark contrasts -- the huge muscular crowd presence vs the weak and meek speaker at the podium.

    JFK, Obama, Bill, all could do it.  FDR too had someone thought of it back then.  

    The traditional convention format indoors has become stale.  You can tweak it a little bit indoors with larger podiums, stronger lighting, bolder colors, and so on, but that's just tweaking things at the margins.

    The speech at Invesco would add to the excitement of an historic nomination, and is the sort of bold but non-radical improvement which could really get us a big teevee audience and possibly an unsurmountable lead going into the fall.

    Sure would be hysterical if he wasn't... (4.00 / 4) (#9)
    by cosbo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    nominated on the second ballot. Talk about chaos.

    No kidding... (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:06:57 AM EST
    though I think this is a signal that they are going with Obama come hell or high water. I guess they have decided to sink or swim as a party on the back of his vacuous promise of fundraising prowess. Interesting that he is pushing so hard for Clinton's big money people.

    I find this move to the stadium to be momumentally arrogant and short sighted.


    Well, you know what they say about... (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by cosbo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM EST
    best laid plans and all. LOL

    They also seem to have forgotten the golden rule:
    Pride before a fall.

    It's also really funny, since the WSJ is reporting today that top Hillraisers are resistance to supporting Obama and many are organizing against him or forcing Hillary on him in some form or fashion.

    This election is now making me giggle.


    You gotta laugh (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    or you're stuck cryin eh?

    The one thing I have learned this cycle is never underestimate the Democrats desire to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If we win this cycle it won't be from a lack of effort to disenfranchise, insult, and create a fissure that marvels the conservative/evangelical one. Sigh.


    Yep. And I'm not gonna to cry. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by cosbo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:14:15 PM EST
    I'd rather laugh at them for being too clueless to figure out something that the republicans 7 out of 10 times have managed to do....win a general election.

    The only sad part is that I have kids in the is country.

    What's funny too is the democrats with their heads in the sand saying that it's a democrats election to lose. Things will go on as they are and Obama  will ride a wave of hope to the White House.

    There will be no 527s
    There will be no negative ads
    There will be no dirt.

    Heck, there will be no negative 527s with dirt.

    All the poll numbers with Obama leading will stay that way, you know.


    There will be no second ballot (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    If Clinton's name gets into the nomination at all, it will be only as a token and then he will be nominated by acclamation.  The only question in my mind is whether naked maidens will carry him into the stadium on a shield to the sound of trumpets.

    Rumor has it (none / 0) (#17)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    that Obama is in negotiations with Clinton to keep her name out of nomination to prevent that possibility. In keeping with Jeralyn's rules I will not link to the site.

    If Obama and the DNC (5.00 / 10) (#19)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:13:48 AM EST
    keep clinton's name off the ballot, not giving her the same treatment and respect that every other candidate has received in the past including Howard Dean, I feel there will be a backlash.

    I think Obama and DNC know that they (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by cosbo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:18:19 AM EST
    cannot do that without risking an immense backlash in the party. Imagine Clinton delegates walking out of the democratic convention in disgust and vowing to vote for McCain.

    That would sure put a damper on things, don't you think?


    No kidding (5.00 / 10) (#42)
    by Mike H on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    I would be EXTRAORDINARILY displeased if Clinton failed to get the same respect and treatment that previous close contenders received at the convention.

    If this is true, it strikes me as nervousness, as if they can't quite believe they'll be able to secure the nomination in a more straightforward fashion.

    Although most conventions are circuses, I'm uncertain the "stadium" situation is really a good idea.  I think the idea is to show how "massive" his support is, by showing a bigger crowd than normal.  It's one thing his campaign has done to reasonably good effect over the primaries.  Bigger crowds is supposed to symbolize more support from voters.

    But, still, it does seem more "Entertainment Tonight" than "C-SPAN", and I'm not sure that is a good thing!


    Not only close contenders (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    Howard Dean was on the first ballot at the convention despite having, IIRC, only a hundred and some delegates.

    Dean was the one who said (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:23:14 PM EST
    some weeks ago (so I don't have the link anymore) that the traditional nomination of Clinton would be discouraged.

    This is not your mother's Howard Dean.  He has been kidnapped, too. :-)


    Yep, Dean is on record as being against (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:19:49 PM EST
    Hillary's name being on the ballot. The rationale was that eliminating her name from the ballot would be done for the sake of party unity. IMO this is faulty thinking but then there has been a lot of that this year especially by members of the DNC.

    The notion that this is bringing down the walls... (4.00 / 4) (#41)
    by citizen53 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:33:18 AM EST
    and opening it up to the people is illusory.

    It will be staged and framed that way, but I see the process as farther from the grasp of people than ever.

    I hope all of those glam critters... (3.42 / 7) (#14)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    who will be clammering to "open" for him and become a part of "history" are willing to sing for Hillary, too!

    Actually, I am so disgusted with this move that it's hard for me to even type.  I have never - NEVER - seen such an jerk in my life...and, believe me, I've seen a few!

    This will be a coronation with glow bracelets and (2.00 / 2) (#104)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:20:56 PM EST
    t-shirts. Can't wait to see P. Diddy in his Obama or Die garb while fist bumping with the candidate. That ought to leave an impression like none other in our history. We have trivialized the presidency to a road show of the absurd. I can't wait till they announce that the Milli Vanilli will make a special  appearance to honor the nominee.

    Nope, sticking by it. (2.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:17:57 PM EST
    The original assertion was that the Obama campaign said that they didn't need "Hillary supporters" -- a very large and diverse group of Democrats.  Saying that, and Axelrod saying that we don't need to win the WWC to win the White House, are not the same things.  

    And to anyone not conflating "Hillary voter" with "white working class", yes, that's self-evident.

    Oh, okay (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:21:07 PM EST
    He dismissed a major segment of Hillary's support, but he didn't dismiss ALL of her supporters! Spectacular point.

    The O campaign has said (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    repeatedly that they don't need the Hillary supporters (predicated, however, on getting a huge turnout from the younguns).  This rock blowout will do wonders to bring them in and possibly get them to vote in November.  If that happens they can kiss the tired, old, poor low information voters goodbye.  The Democratic party will then become a new model of governance.

    The campaign never said any such thing. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    Donna Brazile said something, once, that got interpreted that way by Clinton partisans.  But the Obama campaign has never been under that delusion.

    Axelrod said it. (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by tree on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    You can't get higher in the Obama campaign than that.

    What did Axelrod say, exactly? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    He pointed out once (correctly) that the majority of the white working class has voted Republican going back to Reagan (including the Clinton years).  That's self-evidently not what you're accusing him of saying, so I'll assume you've got something else.

    He said they weren't going (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by tree on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    after them.  His rationale was obviously false, since Obama is most clearly going after evangelicals, who most assuredly are much more Republican than your average white working class voter.

    That's simply false ... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Inky on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    You should read Todd Bartels' "What's the Mather with 'What's the Matter with Kansas." which points out:

    Has the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party? No. White voters in the bottom third of the income distribution have actually become more reliably Democratic in presidential elections over the past half-century, while middle- and upper-income white voters have trended Republican. Low-income whites have become less Democratic in their partisan identifications, but at a slower rate than more affluent whites - and that trend is entirely confined to the South, where Democratic identification was artificially inflated by the one-party system of the Jim Crow era.

    Or better yet, read Angachel's latest post, which synthesizes the Bartels study and several other articles and studies to help explain why so many of us are as upset as we are with the "transformational" politics being ushered in by Obama and his supporters in the DNC.



    You know, there may well be some (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    great analysis in there, but it's pretty much impossible to get at it through the thicket of ODS.  It starts:

    I'm reading the news reports as they come in about Obama's determined march right into the heart of conservative darkness and embracing what he finds there.

    And downhill from there.  Yikes.

    Re: WWC voting, in point of fact, Gore lost them by 17, Kerry by 23.  Clinton got closer, but still lost them both years.  Those are the numbers, I'm sorry to say.


    Was there a context? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    Or does he, like Wikipedia, just enjoy throwing little factoids out there for whatever they're worth?

    It was after one of the rust belt primaries, (none / 0) (#161)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    IIRC.  I don't know what the question was, but I assume it was about Clinton consistently winning the WWC.

    So Axelrod pointed out that it's been decades since we've won the WWC.  And he was correct.  How that gets interpreted as "we don't need the half of the Democratic Party that voted for Clinton to vote for Obama in the general", I don't understand.  But hey, both sides were spinning like crazy at the time, so I can see how some strange "realities" emerged.


    Very simple (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    He was making an argument that it doesn't really matter who the white working-class voters support because that demographic tends to vote Republican.  A really stupid argument and, yes, quite dismissive of the white working-class voters who are interested in voting Democratic.

    I don't share your interpretation (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    and, more importantly, I don't see it borne out by the current direction of the campaign.

    Of course its been borne out. (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by tree on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:24:51 PM EST
    Obama has made no overtures to Clinton supporters. He has made overtures to the much more rock solid Republican evangelicals. Being a heavily Republican leaning demographic hasn't stopped him from making a play for the evangelicals at all.  

    I don't have enough time to find (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    specific references, but certainly DKos made it quite clear.  This from Vuoto, whom I can't seem to get to link:
    Mr. Obama has changed the rules of the game: his current national status exists irrespective of his affiliation with the Democratic Party. In other words, Mr. Obama does not need the party; they need him. The Illinois senator has assembled a group of loyal and vehement supporters who are voting for him, rather than his party. His key constituents such as the youth, middle and upper-class liberals, the intelligentsia, African Americans, independents and disaffected Republicans will support him regardless of any party affiliation. In essence, he has become his own label.
    This is further buttressed by Mr. Obama's financial basis of support. Mr. Obama established a revolutionary fundraising method: appeal to small donors through the internet. This has resulted in financial clout which as has far eclipsed Mrs. Clinton's ability to raise money.  

    Therefore Democrats must beware. If Mrs. Clinton attempts a nasty maneuver to steal the election--such as overturning Mr. Obama's pledged delegate lead by convincing the superdelegates in the Democratic Party to throw the nomination her way, or engineering a floor fight on the convention--Mr. Obama has a nuclear option too. He can take his supporters out of the party and run as an independent with a new party label: The Party of Change, The New Democrats or The Obama Democrats, for example.

    Grace Vuoto is the executive Director of the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal. The opinions expressed are her own.


    OK, so one person thinks that. (none / 0) (#192)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    The opinions expressed are her own.

    McCaskill + Axelrod + Brazile (4.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:18:32 PM EST
    = Obama Surrogate Trifecta.

    McCaskill said something about not making any particular effort to reach out to Clinton's supporters, back at the end of the primaries.  And indeed, he hasn't.  So whether it's intentional or not, it's obviously not an important demographic for him, unlike evangelicals.  So I'd say Clintons 'partisans' were more prescient than partisan, given how it's played out.

    But now I suppose you'll reply by talking about his great and secret plans to reach out to them after the rock concert in Invesco field.


    Where's the bread? (none / 0) (#7)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:02:47 AM EST

    I'll also just note... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    ...that pundit blabbering and attention aside, convention speeches are one of the dullest, most rote, most politically inane things on Earth (though pancake breakfasts are still champs of that) and ANYTHING that breaks the speech out of it's stuffiness -- and reinvents its entire purpose, for God's sake -- should be considered a good thing.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:02:56 PM EST
    I seem to remember that Obama's last convention speech was described with words other than dull, rote, inane, and stuffy.

    Yes! True! (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    But it wasn't the acceptance speech, and he's a known quantity now.

    Though I have a feeling that the less stuffy he is the more certain folks will decide to call him out for shallow glitz, and the more stuffy he is the more those same people will deride his supposed aloofness. So, that being the case, a change toward having more people in attendance and upping the energy is good.


    But no one in 2004 had ever heard (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM EST
    him speak - so he has to find a way to top the speeches he gave all through the primary, plus the race speech and all the speeches he is now giving on religion and service and patriotism - and God knows what else between now and the end of August.

    And if he keeps bleeding Demcoratic support, and failing to stem the tide of Clinton supporters who have pulled back on committing to him, I think it could all end up coming across as just glittering packaging that hides a mediocre product.

    When people are already suffering from buyer's remorse, and others continue to be immune to the sales pitch, setting yourself up in a stadium for your acceptance speech just seems a little out of touch with reality.  What next? The folks from Industrial Light and Magic designing the lighting and sound, so that Obama will "appear" as if out of the heavens, with appropriate heavenly accoutrements?

    Stranger things have happened.


    He doesn't necessarily (none / 0) (#149)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:45:23 PM EST
    need to "top" his 2004 speech -- just match or come close to it.

    Though the pro-McCain MCM will be trying furiously to set the bar ridiculously high for Obama, no doubt.

    Obama's got the goods to play outdoors.  And it would be politically negligent not to take advantage of his oratorical skills and personal charisma in such a dramatic setting.

    As for ILM, I thought they handled Jerry Brown's announcement speech in 1980?   Great job, in fact.  Not so great, the candidate ...

    Oh, almost forgot -- John Kerry wanted some "magic" for his convention, so he enlisted the input of one Steve Jobs.

    Who proceeded to recommend that Kerry ditch the traditional acceptance speech entirely, and instead show and talk over a video of "switch" ads -- Repubs announcing their support for the Dem.

    Kerry nixed it immediately, and instead went with the Reporting for Duty and saluting military stuff.


    I object.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    there is only one suitable venue for Cyrus to accept the nomination....Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx.

    Can you count suckas?

    Warriors! (none / 0) (#120)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:28:47 PM EST
    Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles (none / 0) (#189)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:08:12 PM EST
    site of JFK acceptance speech

    The Coliseum was also the site of John F. Kennedy's memorable acceptance speech at the 1960 Democratic National Convention. It was during that speech that Kennedy first used the term "the New Frontier."

    Now the attack can change from Obama so over the top, to Obama, such a copy cat!

    Any old way to make money (none / 0) (#223)
    by laurie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:47:20 PM EST
    besides, having around 100,000 or more of your own fans in town, just in case some of those super delegates turn on a dime and go Hill's way, could be more than useful.
    Win-win situation I'd say. (it also makes those busloads of pumas fade into the dark night.)

    Odd ... (none / 0) (#224)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:19:05 PM EST
    I didn't know that Nuremberg was in Colorado.


    Convention Over Budget??? (none / 0) (#225)
    by Barbara D on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:31:21 PM EST
    How could anyone possibly justify the expense of renting out a stadium when the convention is already way over budget? I've been a supporter of the DNC in the past, but I sure won't be pulling out the check book for this fiasco. (Just one more reason to not support the DNC right now.) What an ego!