Barack Obama's speech in Seattle today made this 26-year-old feel positively old. I and a few other Gristers hopped a bus over to the rally in Key Arena and were greeted by a stadium overflowing with supporters, many of them high school and college students. I overheard an usher say "I dont see this kind of support for [Seattle's basketball team] the Sonics anymore." (The venue holds 18,000 people: by speech time it was over capacity, with people crowded on the floor, spilling into the aisles, and climbing up the walls into off-limits box seats; several thousand had been turned away at the door.)
An impatient, excited crowd waited as Mayor Greg Nickels, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), and Gov. Christine Gregoire stepped onstage to speak before Obama's appearance. The biggest cheers came when Gov. Gregoire, a Washington superdelegate, reannounced her endorsement of Obama from earlier this morning.
Obama entered, received a rock-star-worthy standing ovation, and then spent about 50 minutes speaking about health care, poverty, the war in Iraq, and yes, the environment. ("We are at a defining moment in our history ... our planet is in peril ... we cannot wait to bring an end to global warming.") He mentioned climate change and energy about eight times throughout the speech, spending a minute or two discussing green jobs, energy efficiency, greenhouse-gas-emissions reduction, and alternative energy. There was nothing there that would be new to Gristmillers.
Obama was, as expected, an inspiring speaker -- and the crowd ate it up. But he was preaching to a friendly audience, and he knew it. It'll be interesting to see how the caucuses play out tomorrow.
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
johnmcc793 Posted 1:13 am
09 Feb 2008
After 43 presidencies, we Americans have an opportunity to be led by a non-white male President.
Leading up to the convention the choices for Democratic voters(and especially the Party leaders) will continue to be mind-bending, difficult and possibly divisve. But, we must keep foremost, the vision of whom the world will look up when the next President-elect takes the oath of office.
Redemption will be a long time coming for America but I live with hope that the next steps we take, as a nation, will be seen by the rest of the world as a genuinely honest effort to make right with the rest of the world.
John McCormick
Permalink
KFK Posted 9:44 am
09 Feb 2008
If you're looking for "Change" on that superficial level...which would be more radical?
A black male?
Or, a white female?
On a more "real level", the simple question is:
Who is the better candidate to run the country?
With all of its complexities, difficulties, challenges, and paradoxes... Are we better off leaving these decisions to a raw beginner? (As we did with GWBush..)
There are somber practicalities to running our country...(Obama said in a debate, that his biggest fault was that he "wasn't good at all of that paperwork stuff" and organizational stuff, and "details", and would delegate such tasks.
( i.e, What he's just described ARE the details of being the chief Executive of the country!)
When the music videos are over, and the Hollywood/Disney-like Presidential "popularity contest", and the buzz, is over...
Who is the more competent human being to manage the complexities of our country?
My own sense is..I think that Obama should be a Spiritual Consultant/Advisor to the Clinton Whitehouse! He is a good man. Just needs more time.
Either way, thanks for those who think and feel hard about these topics, no matter who you vote for.
We need smart, and heart, based decisions.
Our country will be healed first, and always, from the heart.
Permalink
inkabinkaboo182 Posted 2:43 pm
09 Feb 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:15 am
10 Feb 2008
<<
"I believe in my gut if we could just join together, across racial divisions, across gender divisions, young, old, rich, poor, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight ... then there is no problem we could not solve," [Obama] told the crowd of about 18,000.
>>
Does this constitute support for same-sex marriage? Or at least, does Obama believe that all marriages legally contracted in one jurisdiction should be recognized in all jurisdictions, as is automatically the case with opposite-sex marriages?
If not, what does his sentence mean?
What do his youthful, inspired, enthusiastic audience assume he meant?
The other social divisions to which he refers are characterized by mistrust or prejudice on one side or another, but not by unequal legal status (save perhaps in the complicated case of Native Americans).
If all Obama means is, "Straight people who beat up gay people should be told that what they did was very naughty," well, that is pretty basic, and hardly amounts to a brave new foundation for a reformed society, nor does it say much about the quality of his gut beliefs.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:26 am
10 Feb 2008
Huckabee will merely go on with Rove and diss Barack's position, no matter how strong a stand he takes. So he might as well go for it. Just endorse full rights.
That's a plus of a Barack campaign.
The big money lobbying issue behind it all being healthcare. Will same sex spouses get on the other's health coverage? Solve that key issue with total health coverage as in the Kucinich plan, and that won't matter.
Big insurance money and power opposing same sex spousal insurance and especially universal coverage.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:36 am
11 Feb 2008
The Democrats are always trying to convince people how "young" their supporters are. It's almost always pushed by the media and the candidates. Hence, the (quite accurate) comment about Hillary "pimping" Chelsea -- which, if she didn't would mean that her supporters would be entirely in the plus-65 crowd (read the polls).
I, however, went to Kentlake High School to participate in the Republican Caucus. It was a (seemingly) brand new, beautiful school with lots of spirit posters and a flag hanging in the cafeteria that had seen service in Iraq.
The crowd ranged from the chronologically old, but still sexy and spritely, to the biologically young, but sullen and pouty.
I always thought it was up to the media to bust myths, not promulgate them, but I have yet to see ground level views that accurately portray the Republican party...
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:45 am
11 Feb 2008
And it's not like there aren't people of all ages, races, types, etc. in both parties. It's just that statistically speakin', certain parties have greater numbers/percentages of certain people from certain races, age groups, etc.
Permalink
Katy Balatero Posted 10:46 am
11 Feb 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:20 am
12 Feb 2008
He may turn on the lobbyists once he is elected prez. We can only hope.
It will be interesting to see how Barack and our party respond to the inevitable swiftboating. No choice but to think positively now.
It's too late for Hillary to distinguish herself on energy issues, she did try that tack a bit here and there. Too little, too late. It would have been so easy had she listened to anti-ethanol, anti-nuclear, and anti-coal arguments moe closely.
Barring some miracle, Barack and McCain are the choices left.
Today's results will probably seal our doom. Four more years of bushwacking..lite, McCain style. A Hillary/Barack ticket would have been unbeatable. Oh well.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink