Pictures:

http://www.portlandbridges.com/00,5D1IMG33320,264,1,0,0-obama-democrats.html

What a contrast between the Hillary Clinton rally the night before! Whereas Clinton's rally had about 5,000 enthusiastic people, I don't think anyone was turned away. Obama's rally was held at the Key Arena, which holds about 18,000 people, and he filled it plus turned away about 3,000 people (so we were told). Lines were several blocks long even at 10:30 (doors supposed to open at 11). Seating was chaos even if you got in. There are a couple of reserved sections and everything else quickly filled up. I stood for over and hour wandering around until I found a reserved section they eventually opened up. I wound up seated next to some Obama precinct captains who were caucusing for him the next day.

Median age at the Clinton rally: about 45. Median age at the Obama rally: about 25 (I'm totally guessing). There were tons and tons of kids at the Obama rally and not nearly so many out for Hillary.

The rally was otherwise pretty typical (I've been to about ten of these things over the years now), just huge - but no American flags for a change! (I thought you couldn't run for president anymore unless you show up with a huge flag behind you? Hillary had two!) Obama was introduced by Rep. Adam Smith, Seattle Mayor Nickels, and Washington Governor Chris Gregiore (who officially endorsed Obama at the rally). Obama and Clinton have split Washington's Democratic leaders; former governor Gary Locke supports Clinton as do Washington Senators Cantwell and Murray.

The crowd went nuts for Obama - the cheering and deafening noise in the arena was energizing and crazy. The crowd did not seem disappointed with his speech, although I think I've seen him do better (especially after New Hampshire where he was brilliant - on TV). But I think Hillary's Seattle speech was better. Perhaps it was the smaller venue, more intimate, like seeing a band in a smaller venue vs. a huge arena. I think Obama had a harder time connecting than he might normally. I may have been the only one who noticed.

Surprisingly, Obama's and Clinton's stump speeches were quite similar. They both contained the standard Bush-bashing, both mentioned health care and the high cost of education, treating our veterans well, etc. Clinton mentioned the fact that Bush had vetoed the stem cell research bill and that she would sign it; Obama mentioned wanting to end the horror in Darfur (but how?). It's hard to see how they would disagree with each other.

Clinton mentioned Obama only once directly, saying she was "disappointed" that his plan wasn't "universal health care" like hers is. She also said at least once that she would be ready "on day one" as president - another reference to his supposed inexperience. Obama defended against the "inexperience" issue by using a series of stawmen. As one example he took on this idea that he should wait a few years and be seasoned "until they can squeeze the hope out of me." (Verdict: America can't wait, we need Obama now.) And he pretended that he's been criticized for being too hopeful, a "hopemonger" - a standard line in his stump speech.

He also mentioned that Americans were tired of being told what they want to hear by presidential candidates, then proceeded to tell the crowd at the Key Arena exactly what they wanted to hear (let's face it, all candidates do, right?). There was nothing in Obama's speech that the Seattle crowd didn't seem to like or would find unpleasant, so I guess I found his claim a little disingenuous.

I started out before the rallies feeling undecided but leaning toward Obama. I now feel no longer leaning Obama just undecided. Honestly I can find faults in both candidates and also see great strengths in both and would feel happy if either is nominated. I think Hillary would have a better shot at the national election than many would give her credit for.

Andrew

Interesting!

We go back and forth. I'm leaning Obama largely because I think he would present us with more change.

The reason for that is kind of foolish, but I can't help it. At some low level, I'm unhappy with a pretty large number of things right now; therefore, the greater potential for change means the greater potential for overall happiness!

Of course, that's given that things can't get too much worse. They can, but I seriously doubt it will go that way, no matter who is elected on the Democratic side.

The youth vote is compelling too. Will they actually show up and get it done, and maybe stay somewhat involved?

That's the biggie for Obama, IMHO.

The "change" message has its limitations. Change for the sake of change isn't in itself a compelling reason to vote for anyone - change could be bad too.

When you come down to it, people realize that Obama isn't near as experienced as Clinton in the workings of a White House but prefer Obama because 1, he offers a fresh outlook to a set of old problems and, 2, he's not Hillary Clinton - and people are tired of seeing people named Bush and Clinton in the White House.

If elected, Obama would probably make some rookie mistakes in the White House the way Bill Clinton and John Kennedy did. It took both of them time to get their bearings. Are we willing to accept that again?

Chances are, Hillary Clinton really would hit the ground running - she's been in the thick of running a White House before. She's not going to be surprised or overwhelmed by what she finds there on day one. On the other hand, she's probably going to run it in a predictable way, supporting the same cronies who were around in Bill's White House (the ones she favored, anyway) and supporting the status quo of the 1990s.

I think not nearly enough has been made about character and judgment of the candidates, but the media isn't doing much to explore that side of things, unfortunately.

Andrew

I completely agree and struggle with that aspect of things.

One pretty huge deal for me is the corporate bent of things. Perhaps it cannot be avoided at this time. If so, maybe Clinton is the better call.

And it's all about how people see things too. A rookie mistake could be good as well as bad, though the potential for bad does dominate! Probably not a smart wager. All depends on what comes down the pike, doesn't it?

As far as change in general goes, I would temper that "could be worse" bit with, "really?" and "How?". Worthy discussions actually, as I really don't see worse as an option right now.

We really need some inclusive interviews. Some just talking about a lot of stuff kinds of things where we can get some insight as to who these people are.

If that's really the need, and for me I think it is, Clinton gets the nod as I know more about her than I do Obama.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama wins the democrat primary.

Not everything he says is disagreeable to conservatives.

Uniting would be nice. I also appreciate the fact that he doesn't play the race card. And agree with him or not, if the republicans lose, Mr. Obama will at least provide a fresh approach.

Heck, if I could warm up to the French after how they've treated our country, Mr. Obama will be easy to like.

Herb

"Heck, if I could warm up to the French after how they've treated our country, Mr. Obama will be easy to like."

If only his middle name were Milhous instead of Hussein...!

Andrew, I cannot thank you enough for taking us all on your roadtrip!

I am gonna venture a guess that you folks are as curious as I am this Somewhatsuper Saturday.

The Nebraska Democratic Party has some information. So far, turnout has been as brisk as the weather. This is an update from the Obama campaign in Omaha.

There may be a number of factors at work, but so far, all I know about Louisiana is blog rumors. A turnout as low as 15% was expected by some media outlets, and I certainly hope they are wrong!

Our friends in Washington are making things happen this very moment. If you live in Washington State, you need not be a member of a party to vote in a caucus, but you will need to be there now. So, get your hat and go!

I like the thoughtfulness you guys are putting into the dilemma. It certainly has me thinking too. I would challenge anyone who believes that experience is the most important asset to remember this one thing: Most folks fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are a whole lot younger than Obama. It isn't as if he will be doing the job all by himself. He ought to be able to count on a great team in Washington -- including Hillary.

I worry that Clinton is not being scrutinized by some Democrats as a liability. I do not believe that the "Clinton legacy" or mystique or whatever was enough to win in 2000 or 2004. Even with an actual Clinton on the ticket, a bitter war and a failing economy, it just might not be enough. My doubts about her ability to create cooperation also loom large. She has the skills for the job, but I wonder about the intangibles.

The Seattle Times, PI, Tacoma News-Tribune and Columbian are all focused on the election. Of course, KING, KIRO and KOMO are covering the caucusus too. Here is a native Oregonian reflecting on the experience in Seattle. All the stories in Washington have one thing in common: Folks are coming out in droves!

Finally, a report from the caucuses -- and David Letterman Top Ten home office -- in Wahoo, Nebraska.

"If only his middle name were Milhous..."

Were that the case, I'd HAVE to campaign for the guy.

Herb

Polls are closing in less than an hour in Louisiana.

On the bottom of the Wahoo newspaper site, in addition to typing the magic stuff in the box you have to add 2 numbers together and enter the sum in a different box!

I guess they only want "smart" people to register for their site! That rules out the folks from Arkansas!!

LOL. Did you go to a caucus today, Bill? Not to put you on the spot. I am just curious. The Seattle Times and Tacoma News-Tribune are goldmines for stories.

Here is a dilly:

"After the first tally was announced, a greying, sharp-eyed man just in front of me asked the Caucus Chair, Brian Giddens, the essential question: 'How many votes would have to change to change the number of delegates a candidate receives?' "Brian's response drew laughs: 'Don't ask me, I'm a social worker.It's such a complicated formula it would take a UW math professor to figure out the numbers. Maybe 25.'

"But we laughed even harder when the questioner shot back, 'I AM a math professor at UW,' then added, 'that's what I would have guessed.'"
-- Mary Davidson

Naturally, I am wondering if you went. In fact, I'd love to hear from any and all of our friends in Washington who participated today. Your system is unique.

I have some friends who worked for Obama in Vancouver, WA today - I would have gone up just to take some pictures and even witness the caucus process, but I had to photograph another event in Oregon for someone. (Side note: former Governor Kitzhaber kills when he gives his health care talk - and I've seen it a few times before today, even. He's a terrific speaker...)

Andrew

NPR has just called Nebraska for Obama and he has quite a lead in Washington. He may take delegates by a 3 to 1 margin in both of these states.

(Side note: I agree. Further digression: The good Doctor earned the most enthusiastic votes for Governor I have ever cast.)

Is his presentation online somewhere? Would be interested in hearing / reading his take on that.

Another digression: Ron Paul is bowing out. So, where does that leave his supporters?

That's an interesting crowd! They are loyal and principled. IMHO, there isn't really a match left for them? Stay home, vote GOP, Dem, what?

C & L has a blurb with some linkage here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/09/ron-paul-signals-he-may-drop-presidenti al-bid-what-now-for-his-supporters/

(Another digression: So long, Doc. I admired his spunk and the race was far better with him in it. Ron Paul has a huge war chest that goes where now?)

NPR has just called Washington for Obama.

It is nip and tuck early on in Bayou Country.

Missing_kskd writes:
Is his presentation online somewhere? Would be interested in hearing / reading his take on that.

Kitzhaber is involved with some sort of advocacy project for health care. I asked today if his talk (which was video taped) will be online and was told that it will be. The power point slides are important too, though - I hope they captured those as well. He really should do an Al Gore-style "Inconvenient Truth" style documentary, though - his message is extremely compelling and far from what you are hearing from anyone else in public life right now. It's a common-sense approach to health care reform that unfortunately offers few solutions to actually getting there, but I assure you, you will be intrigued.

Andrew

Glad to hear that Dr. Kitzhaber's message will be on-line Andrew. We should do our part to make it viral -- pardon the pun. :0)

Absolutely.

Having been hammered by this, I'm very motivated to continue advocacy on this topic. It needs to be fixed. Don't care so much how, only that it happens.

Way too many people have no idea the risk they are taking daily. When they find out, it's often too late.

I for one will miss Ron Paul. He is about as interesting and entertaining as any politician I've seen.

No chance in Hell to be elected President of course. Intelligence never plays well nationally.

Yeah, me too.

Loved watching him in the debates. With that big forehead and lots of brain power, he flat out just had more presence than the others combined.

Ron Paul is a paradox who sounds like the smartest man on earth 50% of the time and sounds like a complete kook the other 50% of the time (especially when he starts talking about the federal reserve, etc.). I'll miss him too in a sense - he sure was good for some entertainment and the occasionally brilliant summation of current US foreign policy.

Andrew

Intelligence never plays well nationally.

Or in politics!

The epicenter of monumental government stupidity -- also known simply as Louisiana -- is being called by NPR for Obama.

The epicenter of monumental government stupidity -- also known simply as Louisiana

I don't know about that Littlesongs. D.(let's REelect a crackhead as Mayor)C. has to be right up there!

OK, I finally posted a video clip from the Obama rally:

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1959430

(YouTube wouldn't take it for some reason - kept failing during processing, go figure! Maybe Google is pro-Hillary LOL!)

The clip explains why Obama is running - he gets in a few digs about people going through his "kindergarten papers" and says he's not running because it's "his turn." Ouch.

Andrew