Obama to hold mass rally for acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium

[Keystone Phil]

I don't see how anything involving Jesse Jackson attacking Obama is bad for Obama.

Exactly. This is a great news story for Obama.

Anyway, as I said elsewhere, this decision to break with the convention tradition annoys the hell out of me.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't see how anything involving Jesse Jackson attacking Obama is bad for Obama.

Anyway, as I said elsewhere, this decision to break with the convention tradition annoys the hell out of me.

You know that John F. Kennedy did the same thing, don't you?

Not that that convinces me that it's ok since I am no fan of JFK. Please enlighten me though. I could have sworn that he accepted the nomination in the convention hall in LA.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't see how anything involving Jesse Jackson attacking Obama is bad for Obama.

Anyway, as I said elsewhere, this decision to break with the convention tradition annoys the hell out of me.

You know that John F. Kennedy did the same thing, don't you?

Not that that convinces me that it's ok since I am no fan of JFK. Please enlighten me though. I could have sworn that he accepted the nomination in the convention hall in LA.

He gave it at the L.A. Coliseum.

Ah, interesting. Not shocking though. It makes sense that Obama, Mr. "New JFK," would do this - two insanely overrated egomaniacs trying every way they can to make themselves larger than life.

[Keystone Phil]

A lot of GOP folk seem to be up in arms over this.

I'd be even more pissed off if our nominee (either this year or in the future) decided to do this. Should we move the inauguration to Giants Stadium while we're at it? Or how about the State of the Union in the Superdome? Being at the actual convention makes it something. This is just makes it seem like even more of a typical rally.

If McCain actually had the ability to do this he would've as well, and none of you would be saying any of the ridiculous bullsh*t you're pandering right now. Your anti-Obama hatred has grown to the point that you just try to find ridiculous crap to attack him on and then rationalize it as honest political criticism.

As I said, I'd be even more pissed at McCain for doing this. But even if this was just "anti Obama hatred" and my desire to "find ridiculous crap to attack him on," I don't know why your type would be complaining. You've picked plenty of ridiculous crap to attack the current President for so deal with it.

[Keystone Phil]

I'd be even more pissed off if our nominee (either this year or in the future) decided to do this. Should we move the inauguration to Giants Stadium while we're at it? Or how about the State of the Union in the Superdome? Being at the actual convention makes it something. This is just makes it seem like even more of a typical rally.

That seems more like an aesthetic concern than something to be pissed at.  It's the anger part I'm missing here.

Anger because it's more of his "this isn't politics as usual. We're breaking the mold!" attitude just to feed that ego. Personally, I think this 100,000 person crowd is overdoing it and while that doesn't make someone's poll numbers dip, I do think some people will be rolling their eyes at Obama trying to be Preacher Obama at his megachurch.

Or how about the State of the Union in the Superdome? Being at the actual convention makes it something. This is just makes it seem like even more of a typical rally.

Nothing in practice differentiates a modern political convention from a "typical rally" other than the fact that the convention is nationally televised.

Then don't even have the convention.

[Keystone Phil]

No, you wouldn't, but if it makes you feel better to think that you would, go ahead and do that.

Oh, ok. I'm glad you can tell me what I think. "If it makes you feel better to think that you would, go ahead and do that." But please try to argue why I would. I've had no problem pointing out areas where I disagree with McCain so why would this be any different?

Do me a favor and stop being a worthless hack. Stop arguing like a child with "No, you wouldn't" and nothing to back up your claim.

Facts, quotes, examples, etc...

Oh, I don't know. The fascination with blaming Bush for not going into action right away when he found out about the attacks (when he sat in the classroom for all of seven minutes!), the countless minor verbal gaffes, etc.

[Keystone Phil]

Clearly this is going to be the #1 issue this election. Next Gallup poll will probably find that 30% of Americans consider Obama's elitism in holding his acceptance speech in a stadium the most important issue, beating out Iraq and the economy.

Who here argued that this would even be an issue? I know I'm not.

[Keystone Phil]

Where were you when John McCain wanted multiple town hall meeting debates? Those violate recent campaign traditions. What about the regional campaign manager style? How arrogant of McCain to think he can try something like that.

I don't think McCain ever argued against one on one, regular debates with a moderator so I don't see what I'd have to speak out against. If he said he didn't want those at all then he'd be criticized. Again, you don't seem to want to accept that I have no problem criticizing my candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'm apparently just like every other McCain supporter who is just complaining about Obama because it's him so...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good campaign move or not, I still think this man is so full of himself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough. I won't provide an example until you can prove to me that I am only Pro McCain/only criticize Obama.

Clearly this is going to be the #1 issue this election. Next Gallup poll will probably find that 30% of Americans consider Obama's elitism in holding his acceptance speech in a stadium the most important issue, beating out Iraq and the economy.

Who here argued that this would even be an issue? I know I'm not.

J. J.

Quote? I'll admit that I didn't read this entire thread. If he said it, he's definitley kidding himself.

[Keystone Phil]

That's not my point. You're criticizing Obama for doing something different than is "typical" but the only reason he's doing it is because it's politically advantageous. Yet when McCain tries to do something similar, like the new style debates and his campaign structure, you don't raise a stink and start calling him names.

I don't think it's quite on the same scale. Obama is trying to do something totally different. McCain isn't trying to totally change the debate style.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You said I wouldn't have a problem with McCain doing this and that I just said that I would to make myself feel better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Being in this huge stadium with 100,000 people isn't necessarily the greatest campaign move. I don't get why some of you are drooling over that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And again I'll say that I don't believe McCain really has broken with it. He wants to make one change along with sticking with an old format as well.

I think you're also missing something. Obama can do whatever he wants. It's his party's convention. I just don't like this particular break with tradition. That doesn't mean I have to dislike McCain's "break with tradition" in order to be fair to Obama. They're two totally different things so I can have differing opinions.

[Keystone Phil]

A minor change in tradition - an addition to the format - doesn't deserve criticism in my book. You were trying to make the point that I'm not criticizing my guy because it's my guy. That's not the case at all since I have criticized McCain before and will continue to do so. My point is that saying I purposely don't attack McCain for something is wrong.

[Keystone Phil]

I'd be even more pissed off if our nominee (either this year or in the future) decided to do this. Should we move the inauguration to Giants Stadium while we're at it? Or how about the State of the Union in the Superdome? Being at the actual convention makes it something. This is just makes it seem like even more of a typical rally.

If George W. Bush had done this in 2004--and he could have--Republicans would have been cheering and feeling like winners, and with good reason.

I don't know how many times I've done this now but I will say it again - I have certainly criticized my party and candidates I support time and time again. I don't care what other people would have done. I don't even care that other Republicans don't like this thing Obama is doing.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't know how many times I've done this now but I will say it again - I have certainly criticized my party and candidates I support time and time again. I don't care what other people would have done. I don't even care that other Republicans don't like this thing Obama is doing.

Ok... personally I wouldn't have criticized the Republicans then or Obama now, and I don't think it would have made Bush look bad or elitist. He seems to have done well from cultivating an image of an adored leader addressing the masses, not elitist.

This really isn't about elitism; it just seems so arrogant. Why isn't the convention hall good enough? I guess 20,000 people just isn't good enough.

I still don't think this is a genius campaign move. Appealing to big crowds on the campaign trail? Fine. Surrounding yourself with 100,000 people on national television seems to be overdoing it.

[Keystone Phil]

If the deamnd to attend is as high as it is, if you have the opportunity to hold it in a place to help meet the larger demand, why not?

Ok, fine. Would you like the inauguration there as well?

[Keystone Phil]

Ok, fine. Would you like the inauguration there as well?

Sure, why not?  I don't really see a reason to care.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[Keystone Phil]

Ok, fine. Would you like the inauguration there as well?

Sure, why not?  I don't really see a reason to care.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

That's still not really answering my question.  It obviously pisses you off for an affirmative reason.  I doubt you normally get annoyed about "boat-floating" concerns.

Uh...I can't tell if this is serious or not especially since you didn't really ask me a question.

[Keystone Phil]

The question was the part in his post with the question mark.  "Why not?"

Seemed more rhetorical to me, smartass. Thanks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh, that's like telling me, "You're just jealous because all of the Hollywood celebrities want the other guy and you're stuck with all the losers backing your guy." Big crowds at these rallies don't mean as much as everyone loves to believe. Obama brought in thousands for a rally in Idaho. He could probably bring in thousands for a rally in Utah and Wyoming. It means little. It's nothing for me to be jealous about.

[Keystone Phil]

It wasn't rhetorical.  You were giving an example of a situation where you thought I'd get offended, to explain your offense.  I was asking "why not?" -- that is, what was wrong with doing the thing that was supposed to offend me.

I don't understand what the hell that means. I said, "Whatever floats your boat." You wouldn't mind having him do the inauguration at a stadium. That's your preference. I don't get how I was suggesting that you'd be offended.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I explained this to you already so now you're just trying to be difficult.

[Keystone Phil]

I guess that I was assuming a bit of an AIM/forum disconnect for the audience here.  I understand your explanation, sort of.  You don't like how Obama is running on a "new kind of politics," and you see this break from tradition as part of that.  Right.  OK.  But if you're working back to use this as evidence of his bad-ness, I'm just not on-board with that explanation.

This doesn't really make him "bad." It just annoys me. I also think this is a sign of his inflated ego. As I said earlier, these crowds don't really affect the viewers so I don't get why he doesn't just do this at the convention. Again, this isn't him being "bad," just irritating.

[Keystone Phil]

I just hope everyone's praying that it doesn't literally rain on the Obama parade that night. It sure would suck if Obama had to be humbled with a crowd of just 20,000 instead of 80,000-100,000!

[Keystone Phil]

So, you really think that his advisers are telling Obama that giving one of the key speeches in his campaign in front of a huge (!) audience, the speech that more people in the country will watch than anything else, will have no effect whatsoever on the local and national media covering the event?  It's pure egotism?  Are you serious?

The crowd is mainly egotistical, yes. Any advisor with a clue would realize that the size of a crowd at an acceptance speech won't affect how people feel about this guy. It doesn't matter who is watching/covering it. Does it get mentioned/noticed? Sure. Will it change a single vote? Well, wouldn't this be an appropriate question for a BRTD poll...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm pretty sure you are and I'd have a lot more respect for you if you just said it.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe he would do it but maybe you aren't following this very simple point - I don't care who does it. I would be even more irritated if McCain did it especially because it won't help him win.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure the conventions can have an impact but did Bush receive a big bounce because of his speech or because the crowd was waving "USA" signs? This isn't about the crowd.

[Keystone Phil]

Since even Phil seems to be agreeing this isn't going to affect the election or anyone's vote (unlike J. J.), why is he pushing this thread past 15 pages over something irrelevant?

Because it annoys me. We discuss plenty of irrelevant things here, Zachy (you of all people should know this), so what's your point?

[Keystone Phil]

Those complaining about Obama's arrogance and ego probably mostly loved Bush's for the longest time.

Of course everyone likes confidence and arrogance when the "good guys" do it....

Bush wasn't the type wanting his face on t-shirts like Che or stuff like that. When Bush was called an "American Revolutionary" in the TIME 2004 Person of the Year issue, I thought it was a bit much.

[Keystone Phil]

SNIP

I don't remember Obama declaring whole cities and states to be "Obama Country."

Lighten up. 

Every campaign does that.

[Keystone Phil]

Every campaign does that.

"Bush Country" in 2000 was a big phenomenon and Bush said it himself, all the time. It was part of his standard speech.

I don't get that at all. Like I said, every campaign puts up signs like that. I don't get how Bush 2000 was a phenomenon because of it.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't get that at all. Like I said, every campaign puts up signs like that. I don't get how Bush 2000 was a phenomenon because of it.

It wasn't just signs. He said it, too. Shouted it to the masses. Al Gore couldn't get away with saying "Michigan is Gore Country" with the frequency and zest that Bush proclaimed it with. Bush, with an ego so massive and enormous it blocked out the sun, loved to inform people at his rallies that they were living in a state that HE owned, and their residence in that state reflected their devotion to the name of BUSH.

This sounds so assinine. Mentioning that a state is "______ Country" isn't arrogance; it's a "tatic" that has been used for quite some time. I apologize if Gore couldn't get away with it because he had the charisma of a 90 year old man. That doesn't make the man that used it "arrogant."