John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally

Reading about the impressive crowd size at the Portland Obama Rally caused me to reminisce about another awesome Presidential rally - John Kerry's Portland water front park rally in 2004.

Here are some of the awesome pictures:

The crowd size was estimated at 50,000.  Link

Some 50,000 people came out to hear John Kerry and special guests speak in Portland on a sweltering hot summer day. Your phototographer arrived before 10AM, and Kerry finished speaking a tad after 2PM. (I'm wearing a towel over my head - find the shot of me in here).

Along with Kerry, the rally included quick speeches by Oregon's Democratic representatives and leaders: Governor Ted Kulongoski, Senator Ron Wyden, and Representatives Darlene Hooley, David Wu, and Earl Blumenauer. Celebrity guests included actor Leonardo DiCaprio, and rock musicians Jon Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora (who played two accoustic songs).

Finally, the Kerry busses arrived, and Kerry's step-son Chris Heinz spoke briefly first. Then Tereasa Heinz Kerry spoke for quite a few minutes. Jim Rassmann (whose live Kerry saved in Vietnam) also spoke briefly. Retired General Tony McPeak - a Republican critic of Bush's policies - was on stage but did not speak.

Kerry spoke last. He got a lively reception from a large crowd that had been waiting several hours in the heat.

Watching that rally, I was very confident that John Kerry would become our next President.  He and John Edwards were getting amazingly huge and enthusiastic crowds all over blue America.

I cried the day I watched John Kerry concede in Boston on TV.  It was incomprehensible to me why he would lose  --  he was getting huge and fantastic crowds all over the place compared to GWB.

I'm less naïve now.  Like Kristen Breitweiser, I have learned to understand that it is all about swing state electoral votes.  Big crowds in Oregon and Pennsylvania are fantastic but they won't guarantee us victory in November.  Both Obama and Clinton would beat McCain in Oregon according to the most recent head-to-head Oregon poll (Link),  but that would not guarantee us victory in the 15 critical swing states that include Ohio, Florida, Michigan, West Virginia.

Kristen's article Reality Bites: Swing-State Math is very helpful to me in understanding why John Kerry didn't win.  It's a must read.  

Excerpt:

In '04, I traveled as a surrogate for the John Kerry campaign. I was sent to places like Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Florida. Quite the roadtrip.

In the beginning, I wondered why I kept getting sent to these random "swing states." Iowa (a state in 2004 with, yes folks, only one Starbucks!!) Why did Iowa matter? I was a political novice. So dumb. So naïve.

To me, it seemed so terribly undemocratic that a handful of states could determine who became our president. Likewise, It never truly clicked in my head when my New Yorker friends would wryly state that their vote didn't count. Of course their vote counted. Every vote counts. This is America, right?

And then on Election Day '04, I learned the hard way why those swing states mattered so much. John Kerry lost Ohio and Florida and therefore lost the election to George Bush. Four more grueling years of Republican rule. My impression on that sad day? 1460 days to go.

Now with roughly 240 days until Election Day '08, one thing remains the same: THE ONLY VOTES THAT WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELECTING JOHN MCCAIN AND A DEMOCRAT TO THE WHITE HOUSE ARE THE SWING STATES.

So with all this talk of delegates and superdelegates counting and not counting, why has nobody (at least to my knowledge) looked at how either Clinton or Obama performs against McCain in the crucial 15 swing states? Frankly speaking, isn't that really all that matters?

Like Kristen, I want a nominee that can win the GE -- the one that has a better odds at winning the swing states.  In my opinion, that candidate is Hillary Clinton.



Display:


The candidate (2.00 / 4)


   who can't win the nomination is NOT the strongest candidate to win the Presidency. That logic cannot be beat. She's NOT the strongest. If she was, she'd have won the nomination. It was not taken from her, it was not gained unfairly, there were no illegal tactics.....she simply didn't win.

  Therefore, she's not the strongest candidate.


by southernman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:30:30 PM EST

Re: The candidate (1.50 / 6)

I don't agree with that logic. Hillary Clinton ran an incredibly competant campaign in this primary. She rarely made any mistakes. And if she made mistakes, they were usually forced upon her by the sexist media or the sexist Obama, who is only here because of his blackness anyway.

Don't you get it? Hillary Clinton's destiny is being thwarted!!!


by Terrance Manley on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The candidate (2.00 / 1)

"they were usually forced upon her by the sexist media or the sexist Obama"

Which one is Mark Penn? is he sexist media or sexist Obama?

Btw, great rally photos for a great Democrat, John Kerry. Wish he could've drawn Obama's crowd.

Just think, with Obama drawing 50% more people (75K instead of 50K), he'll sweep McCain away in November.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The candidate (2.00 / 1)

yeah I was kidding.


by Terrance Manley on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The candidate (none / 0)

That's because you have a sense of humor.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The candidate (none / 0)

If by "Competent" you mean hired a jackass that didn't even know that Califorina (as well as every other deocratic primary) is not winner take all as head strategist.  Or if competent means not knowing how the primary/caucus works in Texas until the last two weeks before voting began.  Then I agree very very competent.

And you are right, the sexist media was the one that forced Clinton's hand so that she had to vote for the AUMF.

How about this, Clinton was never destined to be the candidate, she needed to work for it and win it, but alas she thought it was her destiny.  This is a fatal flaw.

You can go back to freeper nation now that your rediculous comment has been refuted.


by Why Not on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:45:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The candidate (2.00 / 1)

Yeah I was joking:)


by Terrance Manley on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:46:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was obvious, I thought... (none / 0)

by the end anyway.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:49:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The candidate (none / 0)

Good to hear... it sounded a little too convicing..

your snark got me..

<sheepish grin>


by Why Not on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:57:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it was a good snark ... (none / 0)

the last line esp. gave it away (nevertheless, it's sometimes hard to tell whether some bombastic diaries and statements on the site are real or snarks ... very blurry line)


by silver spring on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's actually the same logic Edwards uses (none / 0)

sounds about right to me.


by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who wins the the presidency is always... (none / 0)

the best President. That logic cannot be beat.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who wins the the presidency is always... (none / 0)


   LOL...who said that? Not me.
by southernman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Same logic. (none / 0)

Dumb.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Same logic. (none / 0)


   Not the same logic at all.

  Voters vote for President hoping that the person they voted for will do the job well. If they don't, they get rid of him next time (Carter and Bush).

  I wasn't talking about being the best, i was talking about being the strongest candidate. Clearly Obama is. if Hillary can't win amongst Democrats, there's no way she can win amongst all general election voters.


by southernman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hello. Hillary is actually winning amongst... (none / 0)

Democrats. She has the votes of more registered Democrats than Obama does. Obama started off with strong independent support which seems to have fled since the Wright debacle.

Next. Any idiot with miniscule brain wattage can see that the republican media is gaming this election.

Of the top three candidates at the end, the strongest to weakest went like this...

Strongest
John Edwards....little or no media exposure

Strong
Hillary Clinton---lots of media exposure but mostly negative with lots of scorn, periodically misogynistic and full of hate

Weakest
Barack Obama...lots of positive, glowing, godlike, messianic media exposure. Full court press of presidential candidate sale.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:44:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question: (none / 0)

Doesn't media propaganda constitute a potential means by which to take the nomination from one candidate and give it unfairly to another?  

Because I believe media propaganda against Hillary Clinton and in favor of Obama from approximately January, 2008 until at least approximately April, 2008 (and continuing if we're talking about MSNBC), is the reason Obama won Super Tuesday, and that string of victories shortly thereafter.  

In other words, I believe media propaganda is the reason Obama is leading Clinton right now.  Perhaps propaganda is not an "illegal tactic", but it is what it is, huh?


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:23:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question: (none / 0)

 
    media propaganda? Hillary was saved in NH by a media that went overboard. The media has laid kid gloves on her latest comment about hardworking white people.

   Obama won Super Tuesday and the string of victories after b/c he prepared for them. Clinton planned for a knockout blow, Obama planned for a campaign. That's what happened.


by southernman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question: (none / 0)

Excuse me, but I was under the impression Hillary barely tried in those primaries/caucuses after Super Tuesday. In fact, her campaign pretty much wrote off a whole month of primaries/caucuses.

You can say if they had planned correctly, they might have beaten Obama (in fact, given her lead going into the race, I believe a competent campaign would have definitely beaten Obama), but you can't really blame the media that Hillary decided to forfeit a months worth of contests or, more accurately, failed to plan for them.


by Bush Bites on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know what her campaign did. (none / 0)

Her campaign is not beamed into five different rooms in my house via cable television wire.

Her campaign is not beamed into my car radio on the local Air America affiliate.

Her campaign does not run Daily Kos.

My comment was about how the media behaved in a certain time period.  You know the time.  It was the MONTHS IN A ROW right before Rev. Wright came out to play, which was AFTER Obama's string of victories starting with Super Tuesday.

From January to about April, all I saw and heard was that the only person in the world worse than Hillary Clinton... is Bill Clinton.  For some reason, although the Rev. Wright story existed in the background, I never heard about it leading up to Super Tuesday or in the month or two after that.  No, it was all about how evil and terrible and racist the Clintons and all of their advisors, supporters, and activists are.  

However, once Obama had enough victories to appear to have it sewed up, the media story went from the Clintons being worse than Satan, to the Rev. Wright story.  

Unfortunately for Hillary, the media propaganda against her came in time to influence Super Tuesday and beyond.  

Fortunately for Obama, the media kept the Wright story under wraps for several months, until it was determined that Obama was going to be the nominee.

So you see, I can really blame the media.  To me, its all in black and white.  Hillary started losing when she started getting bashed 24/7 on all media outlets, and started winning again when the Rev. Wright story came out.  How does that not prove that the media has played a very prominent role in this nomination process?


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kristen voted for Bush. (2.00 / 3)

She fails the shit-for-brains litmus test, sorry.


by McNasty on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:30:49 PM EST

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (2.00 / 2)

Obama is drawing bigger crowds, earlier and they are coming to see him not some rock stars.


by DSloth on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:31:03 PM EST

Colorado begs to differ (2.00 / 2)

Obama blew Clinton out of the water, nearly 2-1, in this swing state.


by PhilFR on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:31:33 PM EST

Yes we do. (2.00 / 1)

And Kerry didn't make the grade here.  Obama's going to crush in the Centennial State, though.


by McNasty on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:35:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (2.00 / 2)

Obama drew 25,000 more than Kerry and this isn't even wrapped up yet. I guess you can find a negative in any positive.


Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!
by spacemanspiff on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:35:10 PM EST

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (none / 0)

At this point the overwhelming odds are is that Obama wins the nomination. How strong he is in the GE depends entirely upon how many people decide to vote for him. You can make him stronger, or weaker your choice.

At this point we can never know who will be the "stronger" candidate in Nov. It is all speculation. Before the Primaries started Clinton was the presumptive nominee and McCain didn't have a rat's ass chance in his party... Five Months from now? Anyone with any political sense can not imagine how many turns and twists we will see.


by notedgeways on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:37:09 PM EST

He "lost" because the GOP stole (none / 0)

the election. Again.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:37:19 PM EST

Kerry lost because he was a bad campaigner (2.00 / 1)

Obama is a good campaigner, and the primary has improved him greatly (thank you, Clinton).

I wouldn't worry about it, Hurdy Gurdy.  I know you're worried, but honestly I don't think you should be.  We'll still win.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:37:20 PM EST

Re: Kerry lost because he was a bad campaigner (none / 0)

Listen.....I am going to say this one more time......      "stop picking on my wife"

Nice crowd...hey, where is the Hanford site...is it around here?


by GendraX on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (2.00 / 1)

Hmmmm....and this rally happened AFTER Kerry had clinched the nomination?

Wow.

That makes Barack Obama's 75,000 people seem even MORE impressive!


by Deano963 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:37:49 PM EST

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (none / 0)

Deano963, exactly and thank you.

This diary is yet another example of the mindless anti-Obama spin I'll love to see vaporize in a few weeks.


by Rumproast on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're welcome.......and I'm with you (none / 0)

in that sentiment.

BUT....I don't thinkit's gonna happen unfortunately.

Quite a few of the die-hard Clinton supporters have made it quite clear that they are going to continue with their efforts to undermine Obama even after he clinches the nomination and Clinton has conceded.

I can only hope that the administrators do their duty and start banning people who continue to do so after Barack is officially the nominee.


by Deano963 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're welcome.......and I'm with you (none / 0)

I think it's already been happening.

I read some complaints on a pro-Hillary site about someone being kicked off of this site for agitating for McCain against Obama.


by Bush Bites on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (2.00 / 2)

Obama got 50% more people to attend a primary rally than Kerry got to attend a GE rally.  The only people who discount that feat are people who want to.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:37:54 PM EST

Sounds like Breitweiser didn't learn from Kerry (none / 0)

the 50%+1 strategy failed twice.


by JJE on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:38:31 PM EST

Of course, this was after Kerry was the nominee, (none / 0)

meaning all dems likely to go to a candidate rally would attend as opposed to a sub-section of Dems who support Obama.

So if after the nomination, Obama's numbers rose, that makes his 75,000 translatable to, what 85K, 95K?

I also hear that every Democratic loser since Oregon became a state has won Oregon.  Maybe it was "used oregano"....I don't know.


by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:45:01 PM EST

He WON Oregon (none / 0)

and this was after the nomination.

I think you made the opposite point.


by BlueGAinDC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:47:29 PM EST

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (none / 0)

Who Obama picks as VP will be very important.  I hope he picks either Webb, Sibelius, Richardson, Dodd, or Biden.  My number one pick is Webb.  Obama will kick ass in Virginia with Webb on the ticket.


by Spanky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:48:35 PM EST

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (none / 0)

Webb has some problems, but he'd scare the bejesus out of the Repubs in the border states and even some southern states.

Can't figure out whether I'd prefer him or Wes Clark, who might be a little smoother and is also a Clintonite, so would help heal the fractures.


by Bush Bites on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obamerry (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for posting this. Wow, excellent point. Puts Obama's rally into prospective. When you add the yachters, boaters, and other lookey loos on the water to Obama's rally totals it's about the same as Kerry's rally. It's a pretty picture, but doesn't win the White House.

Like you, I'm with Hillary!


by grlpatriot on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:53:43 PM EST

There were 25k people in boats for Obama's rally? (none / 0)

I think your math (or your excuses) are a little off.


by upstate girl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:55:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (none / 0)

Keep telling yourself that you "have learned to understand that it is all about swing state electoral votes" as long as you like.

The rest of us will be over here, changing the map for a generation to come, and you're welcome to join us any time.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:56:44 PM EST

Obama drew huge crowds in all the states (none / 0)

where he lost to Hillary.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM EST

Re: Obama drew huge crowds in all the states (2.00 / 1)

So that means the more people who support him, the greater his odds are of losing?

Brilliant.

Conversely, the fewer people who support Senator Clinton, the better she's doing?

I think we've got our next talking point!


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:45:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama drew huge crowds in all the states (none / 0)

That's why a sure sign that a candidate is really winning is when they're doing shots with 8 locals in a pizza joint.


by Bush Bites on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i like vanilla milkshakes (none / 0)

I'm less naïve now.  Like Kristen Breitweiser, I have learned to understand that it is all about swing state electoral votes.  Big crowds in Oregon and Pennsylvania are fantastic but they won't guarantee us victory in November.

No one is saying they do guarantee us victory...but they don't hurt.   You are also comparing primary crowds to general election crowds.  Sheesh...

Is Hillary drawing crowds of 75k?  No.  She's drawing crowds of 300, and getting her speech cut short because the high school cheerleaders need the  floor.


"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08
by obscurant on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:42:59 PM EST

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (none / 0)

Didn't Kerry win Oregon?


United we stand, divided we fall.
by mefeck on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:19:14 PM EST

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (none / 0)

Yeah and we se where that got us.

ALL hill supporters please go watch my new video and rec it and leave a comment so it will stay alive. This INFO NEEDS to get out ASAP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuMDmqww bI


by IndyRobin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:15:46 PM EST

Re: John Kerry: 50,000 at Portland Rally (none / 0)

Pictures said a thousand words.  A big rally means nothing


by JoeySky18 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:46:04 PM EST

Kristen must really be naive (none / 0)

if she thinks she is the first person this year to think about swing states.  pathetic.


John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:46:44 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.