He's speaking at the Memorial Coliseum in Portland at 9:30am Friday and in Eugene at 9:00pm same day. It's free.

If you go, make sure you get there early. Doors open at the Coliseum at 7:30am. He'll probably turn people away - remember, he filled the Key Arena in Seattle a few weeks back (18,000) and still turned 3,000 people away.

Andrew

YIKES, What a mess that will be with traffic.

Damn, my schedule Friday gives me a half day off, but not until 10:30. Hope someone can attend and report back.

I can walk to the Coliseum from my house in about 15 minutes, but I've already seen Obama twice, so I don't have much interest in getting up at 7am to go see him yet again.

Andrew

I am definitely going. Seeing Barack Obama for the first time in a setting that rooted in my childhood is something I cannot miss. I know how this city can roar, and I look forward to drinking in the magical acoustics that only that old building can conjure. I will let you folks know how it went.

"YIKES, What a mess that will be with traffic."

You forget, Obama's people are bike and MAX riders.

I've been granted an interview to take place in my music room - with about 26 secret service agents - as he passes from Portland to Eugene.

Would anyone like me to ask a question on their behalf? I already have a couple.

It'll be a full hour. I'll let you know when it's on.

Seriously?

Iraq -- pulling out in 4 months, right?

Radio station ownership -- Do rules needs revamping?

Internet broadcasting -- His opinion on royalties rates -- fair?

Dude!

If it's real, then I do have one question and here it is:

As kids, we all have those moments when we realize we are different, we begin to understand who we are and also understand we will live most of our lives learning what that means. Can you tell us a bit about that moment Senator Obama?

You guys should all go. You can stand together in the audience with tears streaming down your cheeks. You can all start swaying back and forth and sing "We Shall Overcome" (from the Republicans, of course).

Hold on a moment while I call the WAAAAbulance!

You do know, if that interview was with McCain, I would have said the same thing. Would have had a different question though.

I think it's cool to get a chance to do something like that. Good on CJ for being able to enjoy that hobby and maybe make some small difference.

A lot of younger people are needing to be inspired right now Deane. Just had a conversation with my oldest Daughter this morning as she came home from work.

They are talking about Obama, race and him being honest about stuff --real. Clinton is seen as old school, so is McCain.

It's not just some flash and sizzle, which is where I think you are at on that. Understandable. However, not really all the defensible at the moment.

Deane, have you thought of enjoying a day outdoors?

Seriously.

Grab your tackle box and drive to to your favorite fishing hole. Keep that six-pack of beer cold in the water and breathe in that country air. Anglers achieve the same measure of introspection and enlightenment by communing with nature as any other organized religion. If you are fishing, the eats are better, the choir is always in tune and the sacrament is tall and bubbly. Tie a few flies, land a few big ones and let us know how it goes.

In the meantime, you would do well not to make light of a song that meant hope not only to the Civil Rights Movement in this country, but to millions of people all around the world. "We Shall Overcome" is a hymn and a symbol of the struggle for liberty. It was sung in India, Northern Ireland, Apartheid-era South Africa and during the liberation of Czechoslovakia from the Soviet Union.

Still here?

You need to be fishing.

You libs are so convinced you are dead right and everyone else is wrong you can't stand a different viewpoint.

For me Obama doesn't walk on water and doesn't have oderless BMs. What you'd like to see here is a big Obama love-in.

Someone want to pass out the flowers.

While the idea of a president Obama is far, far better than Mrs. Clinton getting the nod, I think I'll take Littlesongs up on one part of his suggestion.

I'm up for fishing, whilst enjoying the possibilities of a McCain-Huckabee or McCain-Rice ticket.

Here perchie, perchie, perchie.

Herb

Yeah, the fishing would be good. I'll third it.

Deane, there is a clear difference between some excitement and motivation coming from seeing stuff that resonates personally being played out politically, and rabid "love fest" kind of things.

I absolutely know you know the difference too, meaning this is just sour grapes more than anything else.

As for the different viewpoint, that's not ever been the case here, and you know that too.

Comes down to being defensible or not.

If it's defensible, people are gonna talk about that and it's all good.

If it's not, well we are more than likely to call people on that and it goes how it goes from there.

I currently am convinced I am right where Obama is concerned. Totally open to hearing where it might be wrong, and said as much. Many here mean that, and we've all seen it play out enough times to put that to rest.

Really, where it hasn't, it's all come down to things being defensible or not.

You also have to put this stuff into context. There are three choices at the moment, soon to be only two. The end game provides context, not an excuse.

This is about making the most solid choice overall. There are no disqualifiers, only value judgments at this point. You are pushing for absolutes when really it's matters of degree.

The stuff presented here about Obama and his "bad company", and lack of character don't bear enough weight to tip the scales toward the others for a lot of people.

That's just where it is.

Bring more to the table, or deal. That's also just where it is for everybody here.

Ever notice how it's "you liberals" when things go south on a point you are trying to give more weight to?

I do.

There is a nice mix of political alignments here, not just "you liberals". That hasn't changed.

Missing, I too see good points where Obama is concerned and am intrigued to know what he might be able to do. I also wonder what McCain might be able to do. Both have strengths in certain areas, both have weaknesses.

The problem we get into is that this emotional Obama can do no wrong, he's the next thing to a Messiah is an absolute turnoff.

There are those who think my questioning Obama as President is racial. That bothers me not one bit, it only shows how small minded and shallow they are.

There are others who are so liberal and so convinced that any other viewpoint is absolutely wrong that anyone thinking any different is an absolute loser. They'll probably get a response from me they don't like.

Fortunately, I don't put you in those categories. I also don't put CJ in that category. Both of you think a little too much, but that's not a crime.

"Comes down to being defensible or not."

But defensible to WHOM?

Herb

Damn good question Herb!

It's defensible to each of us!

I do it this way:

If the statement fails a core reasoning test, it's not defensible. If the body of known facts don't support it well, it could be defensible, but we need to know more.

Sometimes it's an emotional thing, so that's a bit different and subjective. I weigh things as I see them and go from there.

The combined result of that is "the discussion" and how defensible the stuff is really depends on how people take it.

I tend to lean very strong on the rational side of things, favoring that over emotion where I can.

Others are different. And that's also a factor too. To me, and again this is just me, if somebody will consider something defensible, that's not really all that rational, I give that persons statements less overall weight and tend to fact check and question more.

Won't dismiss it out of hand, but will give their rules for this consideration also.



Deane: Fair enough.

We do need thinkers though. Somebody has gotta do it.

As Mr. Nixon would have said whilst waving both hands with the "V for victory" sign and shaking his big old jowls, "That's all very well and good."

But there's a huge problem. Namely, most issues tend to be subjective.

I mean, if we're willing to allow people to euthanize themselves, or abort the unborn, we've already allowed life itself to be placed on the slippery slope of subjectivity. So if life itself can be shaded with subjectivity, forget about the 2nd amendment, free speech and all the other stuff, including religion.

Instead it's all about who's ox is being gored, not what's right and wrong. Throwing out objective truth is to toss out the innocent child with the bathwater.

Sorry, that's too grey for me. You and Trixter might like grey plenty. But the slippery slope is a powerful argument. The opportunists who want to legalise drugs love the mindset that everything's grey. So do the paedophiles. Move the age of consent to 17, then 16, then 15, then 12, then 10. No thanks. I like recognising bad as bad, good as good and never the twain shall meet.

Herb

I like recognising bad as bad, good as good and never the twain shall meet.

Drugs are illegal! Being a Pedophile is ILLEGAL but it's not stopping anyone! RECORD NUMBERS! I'm NOT saying it should be legal. I'm SAYING it's NOT stopping anyone because it's ILLEGAL.

Your saying its not stopping anyone? I'm sure there are some people that don't do things because their illegal, it may not be stopping everyone. But then again bank robbery is illegal, but people still rob banks, maybe we should legalize that also.

Touche' Nwokie.

Herb

"But there's a huge problem. Namely, most issues tend to be subjective."

I don't see that as a problem. It just is. Welcome to the human condition where we simply do not have a large enough body of established, known absolutely true facts, to do otherwise!

Bear in mind, I put objective nowhere in there. I am absolutely not objective. I can and will work hard at that, where warranted, but it's not the norm at all.

The slippery slope is a fallacy, it fails a core reasoning test as does circular, non sequitor, personal attack, straw man, etc...

The hard reality is things are grey --as in where the facts are not in, there is opinion. Ethics, morality, etc... all play in this space. They play there because again, the facts are not in.

Where we have full command of them, and we can establish they are inclusive enough, we don't have grey, as you like to put it.

This body of things is quite small when compared to our general condition, or state.

And that's just how it is.

You like to constrain and simplify. Nothing wrong with those things, unless unchecked!

We are very different here, I suspect.

I prefer understanding dynamics as fully as I can, then interacting with them in a way that makes sense. I also prefer to qualify things with context before acting.

eg: So, we've got a rule of thumb. Such a rule is applicable most of the time, but not all the time. If it were different, it would be just a rule without some qualifier, wouldn't it?

Ok then.

I see a situation that easily qualifies for the rule of thumb, having the qualifier in place means the rule then is very highly likely to work.

Easy cheezy.

However, if the situation does not qualify, then the rule is less likely to work and decisions then must be made.

Where that's at is a personal choice. It's totally possible to just act as if the rule is absolute and behave accordingly. Know lots of people that do it. Their call.

However, that's not my call.

I do prefer dealing as close to reality as I can, and that is perhaps why I fall on the choice side of things on abortion, for example!

A rape victim is there, not of their choice. Should the rule then apply, leaving them a pure victim, when reality clearly allows for them to take an active role?

No fucking way. Victims are because they want to be, period.

Is that right or wrong? Guess what? I will then live with my decisions and be judged, or not, when that time and place has arrived. If I've a maker, I'll be judged. If not, I won't.

I know absolutely I will have to live my life with my choices. Known absolutely true. Clearly then, dealing with that is a must.

The rest isn't absolutely true, leaving us with our choices and those choices being impacted by what we believe or what we don't.

To frame that up, in terms of a pure philosophy discussion then, in the context of the abortion example, the rule of thumb is to not have abortions.

I'm there.

However, when the situation does not qualify for the general rule, choices then must be made, considering those facts at hand.

If you prefer to nail down some things for your own personal sanity and belief systems, you get to do that! I strongly recommend you do that, and will absolutely support you in doing that, as those are your choices to make.

Please don't make mine for me, thanks!

BTW: To come back around to what is defensible and what isn't...

People make their choices. The sum of that carves out a boundary where we get consensus on many things. Those are generally accepted "good" choices, and the reasoning for them is "defensible".

When we take a position on something and wonder about how defensible it is, we then look in the mirror of our peers for some help.

Those peers are either like minded or not, with ranges everywhere in between. On a side note, different minded would be like meeting an alien, or that mind we see in animals.

Here's where it really hits home for me. I look in that mirror and see varying levels of acceptance, affirmation, etc... I see the opposite too, denial, condemnation.

What I know of these people, factors into their reaction and all of that tells me where I stand, from a perspective I could not get otherwise.

If there is an objective, that's a very good stretch to get there.

In order for that to work, people need to be free to be who they are and make their choices accordingly. If we deny ourselves this, we then risk apathy and with that put our race at risk in the very longer term.

So then when we value the opinion or feedback or commentary, etc... of another person, what we are really valuing is their ability to be true to their selves and express that.

Doing otherwise is both a self-lie (bad), and a manipulation or lie to another. (worse)

This is like the poser, who attends church and projects they are on board with everybody else, but really feels differently.

In the end, living that means contributing nothing.

It's gotta be just and true.

So, we may not agree, but if you've had the conversation in a real way, it's of value and we will both grow and that's valuable. If not, then it's something not so valuable and false on a whole lot of levels.

At our core, we must deal with this at the level of the self.

It may be that it's easier for this poser to just pretend rather than deal with sorting out all the self-lies and such. That's their call and something they must live with.

I suspect this kind of grey is one that neither one of us appreciates or wants to tolerate easily. If so, then I think we agree more than we know!

"It's gotta be just and true."

But again, while it sounds fine, it's really meaningless without a definition of truth.

"Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

Herb

You think Obama will raise the amount, he has admited taking from the Chicago slum lord again?

Your choice man.

Please allow me mine.

Hopefully those of you who want to go see Obama already got (free) tickets? They've already "sold out" and there is now a waiting list:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/portlandrally

It's baffling that they wouldn't get the Rose Garden for this - that would be full, too, but now only 1/2 as many people will be able to see him. I wonder if they will wind up changing venues after all anyway, since the MC is next to the Rose Garden.

Andrew

"Please allow me mine."

And that's precisely why the God-fearing founding fathers set up our democracy the way they did.

A government founded on atheism, like the former Soviet Union, or modern day Cuba, won't allow it.

And you would do well to remember that the same God-fearing founding fathers set up our nation as a secular one. On purpose.

Exactly!

Our brief exchange there is not any kind of anti faith statement. It's actually a very strong pro-faith one.

Anyway, the idea of defensible is out there now. Where I'm at on it is itself defensible, and I know that. To be clear, that exchange is not about right or wrong there either.

It's just some understanding, that maybe will help future things go easier.

And thats why they established the position of chaplin for the US congress, and a chaplins corps in the US military. And established a National Cathedral.

Separation of church and state is there for a reason. They don't belong together. If you think they do, then move to Iran and see how you like it.

Just to be clear and in an attempt to stave off any undue warantless searches I was kidding when I said I have been granted an interview. Although those of you that emailed me your questions - I gotta say - good ones. But I honestly didn't think anyone would believe me.

My bad.

I wasn't trying to do anything but make you laugh. No mind-screwing or putting on airs - just a bad joke.

I'm really sorry about that. I'll be more careful.

Friday 1pm at the Salem Armory has been added tickets no longer avaliable through the website but are avaliable till 9pm tonight and again tommorrow from 7pm-9pm at the Coffee House Cafe on Liberty St. in downtown Salem across the street from Ranch Records.

I am hoping there will be tickets still avaliable Thursday morning.

I just don't understand why they didn't choose to book the Pavillion instead of the Armory because it seems to be an easier building to deal with logistically and seats/holds more than the Armory.

I didn't hear about it until the 5pm newscast and had to do some searching before I figured out the details.

How many folks are going to turn out for McCain when he campaigns here? Some say he won't even bother coming here at all!

The ben-gay fumes alone may keep me away. But if he does come to Oregon, who's going? Show of canes!

Why would McCain need to campaign here? Oregon never matters anyhow.

Mc74, I thought you were out of here. So, you're not a man of your word, eh?

You are so convinced you are dead right and everyone else is wrong you can't stand a different viewpoint.

And that's YOUR view also. That EXTREME RIGHT Evangelical Bible thumpin MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY attitude......

What did I tell you about stalking my post?


Find someone else to bother.

Mc...
He has a point and it's sharper than your head....

I have seen his head, flat as a board from intentionally being dropped as a baby.

Vitalogy writes:
How many folks are going to turn out for McCain when he campaigns here? Some say he won't even bother coming here at all!

I'll go! I'd definitely go to see McCain just to record the political event. I almost went to see him in Seattle but couldn't quite stay after seeing Clinton and Obama...

McCain last campaigned here with Bush back in August 2000 - when I saw both of them. Oregon was in play that year. Gore barely won it (because of Nader) by about 5,000 votes.

Andrew

So Deane with McCain we have someone we have known and can almost predict how he would govern our country.

With Obama we don't have that "known" feeling, or as you have stated we seem to have an "emotional" love fest going. How does that become a known to people in a more practical sense?

That will be where Obama has to make his campaign sing. McCain equates Bush Jr. and his policies. Obama equates??? For now rhetoric that for many is appealing.

Even though I lean towards Obama the question remains, what kind of a president will he really make?

Maybe the unknown will be known in Nov. This will be interesting to watch. We have a long way go folks.

Statesman Journal is reporting Salem is sold out. Hopefully a change of venue is in order for Friday in Salem.

Don't worry, I think Obama will be back campaigning in Oregon again before May 20.

Andrew

I didn't have a ticket to the rally (which we were assured we needed to get in), but I showed up at at Coliseum at 6:15am to help with a voter registration drive anyway. I think I registered about 20 voters (many were change of address or party). There were another 10 of us working the crowd with our clipboards, just doing registration; many others were handing out literature for candidates (Kate Brown showed up, running for Secretary of State).

By 8:45-ish (9:30am start time), I was freezing and my fingers were almost numb, but the huge crowd and lines in front of the Coliseum had completely died down - not like the Seattle rally in February where there were 3,000 people waiting outside (in vain) to get in. I heard someone say, "You can get in without a ticket now" so a few of us who had been ready to go get warm walked right in.

There were at least 500, maybe up to 1,000 empty seats in the place - some without great views, but surely many of the people who couldn't get tickets after they "sold out" 2 hours after the Wednesday announcement would have loved just to sit in the venue and hear Obama speak. What a shame so many were denied the opportunity when there was plenty of room. (I was on the wait list and never got called.) Bad planning on the part of the Obama campaign.

I guess since I've heard Obama speak three times now I started tuning out his speech. It was largely the same as his Seattle speech (with some tidbits about Bill Richardson thrown in, since Richardson endorsed him first then introduced him). I didn't have my best camera with me since I hadn't even planned to get in and thought I could be in the rain beforehand. But I concentrated on taking what pictures I could - and when I do that, I'm barely listening to the words.

I would say the response wasn't nearly as good as at the Seattle rally, however. Less enthusiasm. And the crowd was much older, whereas in Seattle there were far more kids there.

I'd be curious to see a Clinton rally here soon too - and I imagine we will.

Andrew

Since they gave out tickets, over the internet, I wonder how many republicans signed up for tickets? and burned them.

Nwokie, I have no doubt that there are some Republicans dumb enough to receive email tickets from the Obama campaign, print them out, then burn them. The smarter ones were probably at the rally today.

Andrew

Considering there were over a thousand no shows, I think my scenerio probably occured a lot.

Or there just wasn't that much interest in Obama.

Never underestimate the number of dumb Republicans.

There was plenty of interest in Obama. He had a smaller rally here in September at the Oregon Convention Center - maybe 1,000 people - where everyone paid $25 to get in. I'm guessing that most of the people who paid $25 showed up.

When it's free to sign up and no obligation to show up, most people will sign up. What do they have to lose? Only later they may realize they can't get off work or they are leaving for spring break or 7:30am is too early.

In Seattle last month, where no tickets were required (people were just told to show up), 18,000 people filled the Key Arena there and 3,000 people were turned away. I have no doubt they would have filled the Coliseum had they not required tickets this time, either.

Andrew

I would have shown up had I known I could get in without a ticket. But, I didn't get a ticket, therefore, didn't want the risk of waking up earlier than I like and dealing with downtown.

Yeah, exactly, Vitalogy. I only went at all because I was doing voter reg. I was about 5 minutes from splitting because I was freezing and the crowd was almost gone. I never thought I'd get in.

I think they should have charged $2 a ticket (which barely covers a processing fee). Then you can bet people would have shown up, and people wouldn't have scarfed up tickets unless they were sure they could make it.

Andrew

Oh, I did post some of my (unimpressive) crowd snapshots from the rally here:

http://www.portlandbridges.com/00,DREB0CRW16091,267,1,0,0-obama-democrats.html

Andrew

I was Down at the Benson today (trying) to make a delivery. Saw Obabma come out and head to the event.

Why cant they do this kind of stuff in Beaverton or something? Why always in downtown Portland and screw up the day for us delivery guys?

Hey, I was able to walk to the Coliseum from my house. I'm glad these events are held near me!

Anyway, where in Beaverton is there a venue that holds 10,000 people, has good freeway access (and adequate parking), and good public transit access?

Republican rallies tend to be at University of Portland in North Portland. Bush and McCain were there campaigning together in late summer of 2000. Can't quite walk there and MAX isn't really an option either (only buses). Then again, I assume the average Republican voter doesn't care about public transit options.

Andrew

If the weather is nice, do it at the football stadium out by Hwy 26.

Anyone here see Bobby Kennedy when he visited Oregon?

That would have been great.

Herb