Obama may accept nomination at NFL stadium

[RunInRed 16,454]

Obama may accept nomination at NFL stadium

(CNN) — Call it location, location, location.

Barack Obama's campaign is thinking of having the Democratic presidential candidate give his presidential nomination acceptance speech at a football stadium rather than in the arena in Denver, Colorado, where the Democratic National Convention is being held.

CNN has confirmed that discussions are underway between the campaign and Denver's convention organizing committee to move the senator from Illinois' acceptance speech from the Pepsi Center, a basketball and hockey arena which seats around 20,000 people, to Invesco Field at Mile High. The football stadium where the Denver Broncos play can seat around 75,000 people.

A bigger crowd could make for a more compelling picture and image.

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.

The story was first reported in the Los Angeles Times and by the Associated Press.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Shannon Gilson told the AP that no decisions have been made.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[RunInRed 16,454]

Update: It's Official

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Barack Obama will give his main speech of the Democratic National Convention at a 75,000-seat stadium rather than the 20,000-seat hall where the convention is taking place, convention organizers announced Monday.

Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for president at Denver's INVESCO Field at Mile High on August 28.

The move looks likely to put him in front of a much larger audience than normal for a political speech, even for a presidential nominee.

Convention organizers portrayed the move as a reflection of Obama's success at encouraging people to vote for the first time.

"Barack Obama's campaign for change has inspired millions of Americans and brought people into the political process who might never have been involved," said Convention Co-Chair Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. "This change in the Convention program will allow thousands of first-time participants a chance to take part."

Obama's largest event to date was in Portland, Oregon, in May, where he drew a crowd of approximately 75,000. He has done at least one previous stadium event, a joint appearance with talk show host Oprah Winfrey at Williams-Brice Stadium in South Carolina that drew about 29,000 people.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[Tigermike 3,046]

Update: It's Official

No one else is wetting their pants about this as you seem to be.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

[Tigermike 3,046]

So what?

I agree.

[otterinbham 0]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. Very little concern with public policy and their subsequent effects on economics. Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

[arnaldoabru 11]

It certainly beats McCain's pea green back drop from that all inspiring speech he made in New Orleans the night Obama rapped up the nomination.

[Tigermike 3,046]

The dims have got it, style over substance.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. Very little concern with public policy and their subsequent effects on economics. Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

Honestly, you could not be more wrong. People don't get involved because they want to be "entertained." There are certainly much better venues for that. Ordinary citizens are engaged like never before because they care about real issues that are affecting their lives.

I can't help but laugh at the conservatives on this board...you guys still don't get it...you don't understand that this is not about Obama. It's about us, it's about America, it's about our future, and the future of the free world. To put it another way - change is coming - with or with out you.

[CCTAU 3,336]

He might as well. It's all show with him anyway.

He could title the show:

THE BIG EMPTY SUIT.

[otterinbham 0]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. Very little concern with public policy and their subsequent effects on economics. Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

Honestly, you could not be more wrong. People don't get involved because they want to be "entertained." There are certainly much better venues for that. Ordinary citizens are engaged like never before because they care about real issues that are affecting their lives.

I can't help but laugh at the conservatives on this board...you guys still don't get it...you don't understand that this is not about Obama. It's about us, it's about America, it's about our future, and the future of the free world. To put it another way - change is coming - with or with out you.

Wow. You couldn't have made my case better if you tried. What exactly does all that mean? That paragraph was nothing more than an incoherent grabbag of clichés with utterly no substance to it. And yet you're making the case that Obama supporters aren't looking to be entertained?

What exactly is your change? Okay, I'll grant the reversal of some really stupid Bush decisions such as the use of torture. Heck, if I were sworn into office, I'd sign the executive order halting that even before I gave my inaugural address.

But jacking up taxes? The rest of the industrialized world has begun figuring out that lowering taxes is the key to economic growth. The fact that gap between American household income and Western European household income (With the exception of the British and Irish, who both took similar paths and have also reaped the rewards) has widened over the past thirty years is one of their motivating factors. Yet, Obama seems to be taking his cues from the past. So much for the future there.

The future of the free world? A far larger percentage of the world is now free due precisely to the rejection of planned economies, and definitely not by embracing the classic Democratic/Keynsian philosophies of higher taxes and higher regulations. If you read economic thinkers such as Von Hayek and Friedman, you would realize that economic freedom is the surest possible path to political freedom, and their viewpoint has been exonerated time and time again. Yet, you're sitting there in rapt admiration of a man whose economic beliefs could cause long term havoc to the American economy--precisely at a time when our economic rivals are catching on.

So all I'm asking for is a little precision out of you. By "change," what you're really saying is, "Let's go back to Lyndon Johnson's playbook," without ever realizing the problems it will cause. Problems that will, comparatively speaking, making our little economic slowdown seem like a short term cash flow problem.

[CCTAU 3,336]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. Very little concern with public policy and their subsequent effects on economics. Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

Honestly, you could not be more wrong. People don't get involved because they want to be "entertained." There are certainly much better venues for that. Ordinary citizens are engaged like never before because they care about real issues that are affecting their lives.

I can't help but laugh at the conservatives on this board...you guys still don't get it...you don't understand that this is not about Obama. It's about us, it's about America, it's about our future, and the future of the free world. To put it another way - change is coming - with or with out you.

Wow. You couldn't have made my case better if you tried. What exactly does all that mean? That paragraph was nothing more than an incoherent grabbag of clichés with utterly no substance to it. And yet you're making the case that Obama supporters aren't looking to be entertained?

What exactly is your change? Okay, I'll grant the reversal of some really stupid Bush decisions such as the use of torture. Heck, if I were sworn into office, I'd sign the executive order halting that even before I gave my inaugural address.

But jacking up taxes? The rest of the industrialized world has begun figuring out that lowering taxes is the key to economic growth. The fact that gap between American household income and Western European household income (With the exception of the British and Irish, who both took similar paths and have also reaped the rewards) has widened over the past thirty years is one of their motivating factors. Yet, Obama seems to be taking his cues from the past. So much for the future there.

The future of the free world? A far larger percentage of the world is now free due precisely to the rejection of planned economies, and definitely not by embracing the classic Democratic/Keynsian philosophies of higher taxes and higher regulations. If you read economic thinkers such as Von Hayek and Friedman, you would realize that economic freedom is the surest possible path to political freedom, and their viewpoint has been exonerated time and time again. Yet, you're sitting there in rapt admiration of a man whose economic beliefs could cause long term havoc to the American economy--precisely at a time when our economic rivals are catching on.

So all I'm asking for is a little precision out of you. By "change," what you're really saying is, "Let's go back to Lyndon Johnson's playbook," without ever realizing the problems it will cause. Problems that will, comparatively speaking, making our little economic slowdown seem like a short term cash flow problem.

ROTFLMAO.

Sounds like you just don't understand "geopolitics". I'm sure RiR can explain it. He sure uses the term a lot. So I figure he knows how it all works. Don't you want to be saved by the black messiah? Can't you see the truth? Believe and you WILL be changed. Open your eyes and you WILL have hope. Does it all make sense now?

[otterinbham 0]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. Very little concern with public policy and their subsequent effects on economics. Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

Honestly, you could not be more wrong. People don't get involved because they want to be "entertained." There are certainly much better venues for that. Ordinary citizens are engaged like never before because they care about real issues that are affecting their lives.

I can't help but laugh at the conservatives on this board...you guys still don't get it...you don't understand that this is not about Obama. It's about us, it's about America, it's about our future, and the future of the free world. To put it another way - change is coming - with or with out you.

Wow. You couldn't have made my case better if you tried. What exactly does all that mean? That paragraph was nothing more than an incoherent grabbag of clichés with utterly no substance to it. And yet you're making the case that Obama supporters aren't looking to be entertained?

What exactly is your change? Okay, I'll grant the reversal of some really stupid Bush decisions such as the use of torture. Heck, if I were sworn into office, I'd sign the executive order halting that even before I gave my inaugural address.

But jacking up taxes? The rest of the industrialized world has begun figuring out that lowering taxes is the key to economic growth. The fact that gap between American household income and Western European household income (With the exception of the British and Irish, who both took similar paths and have also reaped the rewards) has widened over the past thirty years is one of their motivating factors. Yet, Obama seems to be taking his cues from the past. So much for the future there.

The future of the free world? A far larger percentage of the world is now free due precisely to the rejection of planned economies, and definitely not by embracing the classic Democratic/Keynsian philosophies of higher taxes and higher regulations. If you read economic thinkers such as Von Hayek and Friedman, you would realize that economic freedom is the surest possible path to political freedom, and their viewpoint has been exonerated time and time again. Yet, you're sitting there in rapt admiration of a man whose economic beliefs could cause long term havoc to the American economy--precisely at a time when our economic rivals are catching on.

So all I'm asking for is a little precision out of you. By "change," what you're really saying is, "Let's go back to Lyndon Johnson's playbook," without ever realizing the problems it will cause. Problems that will, comparatively speaking, making our little economic slowdown seem like a short term cash flow problem.

ROTFLMAO.

Sounds like you just don't understand "geopolitics". I'm sure RiR can explain it. He sure uses the term a lot. So I figure he knows how it all works. Don't you want to be saved by the black messiah? Can't you see the truth? Believe and you WILL be changed. Open your eyes and you WILL have hope. Does it all make sense now?

Is that really necessary?

[CCTAU 3,336]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. Very little concern with public policy and their subsequent effects on economics. Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

Honestly, you could not be more wrong. People don't get involved because they want to be "entertained." There are certainly much better venues for that. Ordinary citizens are engaged like never before because they care about real issues that are affecting their lives.

I can't help but laugh at the conservatives on this board...you guys still don't get it...you don't understand that this is not about Obama. It's about us, it's about America, it's about our future, and the future of the free world. To put it another way - change is coming - with or with out you.

Wow. You couldn't have made my case better if you tried. What exactly does all that mean? That paragraph was nothing more than an incoherent grabbag of clichés with utterly no substance to it. And yet you're making the case that Obama supporters aren't looking to be entertained?

What exactly is your change? Okay, I'll grant the reversal of some really stupid Bush decisions such as the use of torture. Heck, if I were sworn into office, I'd sign the executive order halting that even before I gave my inaugural address.

But jacking up taxes? The rest of the industrialized world has begun figuring out that lowering taxes is the key to economic growth. The fact that gap between American household income and Western European household income (With the exception of the British and Irish, who both took similar paths and have also reaped the rewards) has widened over the past thirty years is one of their motivating factors. Yet, Obama seems to be taking his cues from the past. So much for the future there.

The future of the free world? A far larger percentage of the world is now free due precisely to the rejection of planned economies, and definitely not by embracing the classic Democratic/Keynsian philosophies of higher taxes and higher regulations. If you read economic thinkers such as Von Hayek and Friedman, you would realize that economic freedom is the surest possible path to political freedom, and their viewpoint has been exonerated time and time again. Yet, you're sitting there in rapt admiration of a man whose economic beliefs could cause long term havoc to the American economy--precisely at a time when our economic rivals are catching on.

So all I'm asking for is a little precision out of you. By "change," what you're really saying is, "Let's go back to Lyndon Johnson's playbook," without ever realizing the problems it will cause. Problems that will, comparatively speaking, making our little economic slowdown seem like a short term cash flow problem.

ROTFLMAO.

Sounds like you just don't understand "geopolitics". I'm sure RiR can explain it. He sure uses the term a lot. So I figure he knows how it all works. Don't you want to be saved by the black messiah? Can't you see the truth? Believe and you WILL be changed. Open your eyes and you WILL have hope. Does it all make sense now?

Is that really necessary?

Yes. Yes it is.

I'm just trying to get you to see the light. Can you not see it?

It's OK, the hope and change will benefit you too. It's for everybody, not just believers.

[RunInRed 16,454]

With all due respect (b/c you are one of the few genuine posters on this board), you are macro-blinded by your allegiance to your position on the tax issue. In fact, you have become quite notorious for painting a dooms day picture where rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top income earners, will some how lead to armageddon. I suppose, it might even looks something like the 90s - heaven forbid, what ever would we do?

As for where I would like to see progress and yes, dare I say - change, the list is almost endless. But since you don't appear as frequent on this board as some others, I'll provide the elevator version on three most important issue to me:

1) Getting our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our resources on AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan

2) Ending our dependence on fossil fuels and big oil. Solving our energy crisis by making America an energy independent country.

3) A return to fiscal responsibility in Washington and beginning to reduce our national debt

And just for some balance, here are two main issues where I disagree with Obama:

1) I am opposed to an increase in the Capital Gains Tax but I do think we need to find a way to end the loop hole that allows some to realize large amounts of their income at 15% while be sheltered from the ordinary income rates

2) I am leary of Obama's insistence on intertwining faith and American life - specifically as it relates to our Government. That is such a delicate line to walk and I have always been a strong advocate of a wall that is unable to be penetrated between church and state.

So how about you cut the crap and just respect my views like I respect yours.

[otterinbham 0]

I respect views when they are substantive, not cribbed out of a stump speech. That being said, since you have now provided a substantive policy focus rather than ooohhhing and aaaahhhhing over the guy, let's address those.

1) Getting our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our resources on AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Well, as I noted in another post, it might actually become fait accompli anyway by the end of the year, by the progress occasioned by our change in military strategy and its resulting stability and credibility of the Iraqi national government. However, cutting out (the course favored by Obama) would have proven to be the most disastrous option of all. This makes me seriously question the man's poise in any situation where a sustained military operation is involved--a necessary component for any man who occupies the Oval Office.

2) Ending our dependence on fossil fuels and big oil. Solving our energy crisis by making America an energy independent country. This is a vague objective, one that nobody can really argue with. The question comes in the details. Do we wreak large-scale financial havoc by policies that ultimately drive oil up to $200 a barrel based on a childlike belief in a visit from the Energy Fairy, who waves her wand and whips up new technologies out of thin air? Or do we gradually reduce dependency from foreign sources while simultaneously weaning ourselves from petroleum? Note that I do not choose to succumb to the shrill panic mongering of the Global Warming crowd, especially in light of the gathering dissent of climatologists. I view it strictly as a geopolitical and economic issue, not as a looming ecological disaster.

More to the point, I don't think you realize how disastrous an incorrect approach to this problem could be. Just look at the effects of the 1974 and 1979 price hikes had on the economy to understand what a knife edge we're on at the moment. Personally, I think gas prices will begin dropping in September barring a major supply interruption. But electing a president whose policies seek to keep gasoline high will keep inflation high, unemployment high, and will slow the economy down to a crawl--the very thing Obama's trying to avoid in the first place. Even though tax rates did get ratcheted higher in the early 1990s, what you omit is the fact that the Republican-led Congress kept spending increases to a crawl. That allowed the government some breathing room to actually lower the national debt, something that would have proved utterly impossible had Bill Clinton's vision of nationalized healthcare been implemented.

3) A return to fiscal responsibility in Washington and beginning to reduce our national debt. Bravo. The problem with W was not his tax cuts. It was the monumental spending hikes that took place during his administration. You imply I am "macro-blinded" (Is that even a word?) to the tax issue. That's because, in economy after economy, the level of taxation is a determinant of economic health, not an afterthought. Obama does not seem to understand this. He does not understand the correlation of higher taxes on prolonging the Great Depression and he does not understand how the higher taxes of the Great Society program nearly brought the American economy to its knees by the early 1970s. He does not look at the moribund economies of Europe and understand that a huge part of their problem are their high taxes, overarching welfare state, and overregulated economy.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

It certainly beats McCain's pea green back drop from that all inspiring speech he made in New Orleans the night Obama rapped up the nomination.

Did he have good flow? Is he more East Coast or West Coast style?

[arnaldoabru 11]

It certainly beats McCain's pea green back drop from that all inspiring speech he made in New Orleans the night Obama rapped up the nomination.

Did he have good flow? Is he more East Coast or West Coast style?

I think more Old School,probably like Run DMC.

[au2004ece 30]

I've seen Hitler addressing stadiums full of people on the History Channel.

I'm not saying Obama is Hitler, just that people have been tricked before into following idiots because they could speak well and gather large crowds of others.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

I've seen Hitler addressing stadiums full of people on the History Channel.

I'm not saying Obama is Hitler, just that people have been tricked before into following idiots because they could speak well and gather large crowds of others.

Nice edit for disclaimer. Don't want you to get banned if one implies incorrectly from your statement!

[TitanTiger 20,506]

Yeah, because we've banned all of zero people in the history of this board because of their espoused political views. How ever do you stand the oppression?

[Tigermike 3,046]

The Obama campaign officially announced today that Sen. Obama will accept the Democratic presidential nomination in an open air event expected to draw 75,000 people. The campaign takes pains to point out that free tickets will be available for the torchlight rally acceptance speech, but...

"If you make a donation of $5 or more between now and midnight on July 31st, you could be one of 10 supporters chosen to fly to Denver and spend two days and nights at the convention, meet Barack backstage, and watch his acceptance speech in person. Each of the ten supporters who are selected will be able to bring one guest to join them."

Obama will sell anything. So much for the new politics. Obama's campaign is more motivated by money and fundraising than any campaign in recent memory. One wonders if this will continue into an Obama presidency.

"For a donation of $25 dollars or more, you could be one of 10 lucky people to be flown to Washington D.C. to sit in on an exciting intelligence briefing in the White House Situation Room. Afterwards, you'll be given an exclusive tour of the Oval Office and get to listen in on a secure phone call between President Obama and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Your whirlwind day will conclude with a special de-briefing by the president and the opportunity to personally sign one letter of President Obama's signature to the official roll back of the Bush Tax Cuts."

I guess "fixing a broken public finance system" means "sell anything that isn't nailed down including my dignity and the dignity of the office in order to out raise my opponents" in Obamian.

[autiger4life 3]

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. Very little concern with public policy and their subsequent effects on economics. Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

Likely to be heard at acceptance

Person 1:Me likey big show and bright lights.

oooooooooohhhh ahhhhhhhhhh.

Person 2: When does the concert start?

Person 3: This is a political function

Person 2: Ohhh, so no concert?

Person 4: Hey do you think the concession stand is open?

[TexasTiger 12,974]

"My name is John McCain and I'm gonna balance the budget by winning them wars we're in!"

[TexasTiger 12,974]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. ... Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

From a fella who voted for this guy-- twice:

The Hypocrisy Express continues...