If people in Iowa and New England braved the vagaries and bone-chilling low temperatures of Iowa and New Hampshire in December and January, and even worse in cold climate states in February for hours just to see Obama speak during the primaries, I'm certain they will not shrink from rain and humidity in August in Denver.  How many fans of football, brave games in snowstorms in unroofed stadiums in the upper mid west and northeast, as well as, elsewhere to cheer on their favorite teams to victory, when viewers, at home in their warm abodes, wonder at their lunacy for doing so?  I doubt a little rain, or even a downpour will crush the spirit of the fans of the "Orange Crush" and their friends from the 49 other states, and keep them away from hearing the acceptance speech of their newly (officially) nominated candidate for President of the United States.

Historically, the Democratic Convention of 1944, held, ironically in Chicago, saw temperatures rise inside the venue that was its home, rise to 120 degrees F, and more on the floor of the convention, night after night, without air-conditioning to nominate both FDR and Harry S. Truman, without riot and without widespread heat prostration.  People are remarkably resilient when they want something so badly.

Also, weren't there some stadium acceptance speeches in the past?  FDR gave his 1936 Rendezvous with Destiny acceptance at Franklin Field, not the convention hall, and JFK speaking at LA Coliseum for his New Frontier Address.  Can TNR get some research assistance to check on that?

Rain won't matter.  Obama walks on water anyway.

(bigfish runs away)

bigish, I don't know, since McCain is such a war hero, he can use his heroism to part the water.

I think the stadium idea is dumb, he will look like an ant when they go to the camera at the far end of the stadium. Obama's speech and McCain's speech will be enough of a counterpoint for anyone.

bigfish, Obama doesn't walk on water, the water gets out of his way.  

No particular logic here, just that this feels wrong in my gut.  (And, by the way, there's a decent bit of room to feel wrong in there.)

Makes me think of Kinnock's stadium speech to the Labour party. As we know, Major won by standing on a soapbox in the street, while "the next Prime Minister" flew in choppers to stadiums.

Is there not a danger of history repeating itself here?

I think people could get turned off by Obama the cult. My eyes have been opened recently. Change that matters he ain't. Marginally less regressive tax cuts; pro handgun; pro Murdoch approved mob law in the courts; a health plan that, to my ignorant eyes, looks as much like a subsidy for the insurance industry as it is a progressive change; more right wing on the I/P issue than even Marty can manage; a green light for Israel to bomb Iran; no change on Cuba; no change on FP- period.

And his money grab from some very dodgy industry sectors is just unseemly.  

The last thing America needs is a better looking Blair.

Iggy Pop:  If he is successful in passing his health care plan, it will be revolutionary.  The other side will attempt nothing.  His tax cuts are not "less regressive" than McCain's.  They are not regressive at all.  They are progressive.  And there's nothing "marginal" about them when compared to McCain's proposal or, indeed, with the universe of what is possible over here in the real world.  No change in foreign policy?  That's absurd.  Let's stop this "they're all the same" bullshit before it starts, just because he doesn't happen to agree with every position taken by left-wing bloggers, on Israel especially.  That attitude is what got us into Iraq in the first place.  See Nader.

I hope you're right hildner, I really do.

Can you name one specific area of FP that Obama is going to change? Please leave out the vague promises of using diplomacy again. God knows I want to believe. Throw me a FP bone.

Well, if you leave out the shift from military posturing and use of the blunderbuss military option to diplomatic (though necessarily imperfect) solutions, then you're leaving out a lot.  Anyway, doesn't getting the f out of Iraq count?  (And please leave out the bogus charge of flip-floppery on that.  I have just received the memo that that is the hysterical obsession of yeserday's news cycle.)

Iggy P - I'll throw in his spoken willingness to talk to Iran face to face, first mentioned after he announced, which was right around when every human being on Capitol Hill was talking seriously about bombing, if not planning for it.  

No one is mau-mauing Bush for finally dealing with North Korea in a mature manner, as they shouldn't. Yet only Obama is the sell out.  Huh?  

I'm tired of the paranoid cult of people complaining about an Obama cult.  He's a cunning pol out to win first and foremost and anyone not seeing that all along deserves to be caught up in liberal bodice ripping right now.  Most Presidents are, at least the successful ones.

So what?  

FISA: a perfectly workable bill, Iraq: manufactured hysteria over Obama choosing the correct policy over ideology, imagine that. Guns? Hari kari anyone? Israel? Ditto. Presidential election: trying to win (not normally a liberal pass time) and plucking the good and good enough from the muck to make it happen.  

What is wrong with faith based initiatives done correctly anyway?  I'm a social worker dealing with relentless budget cuts, more deeply troubled people with *nothing* than ever and I could use the help, whatever you want to call yourself.  

Ideologues give me the heebies, I'll own up to being an ideolouge on minority rights, but the rest?  Bodice ripping suicidal tendencies of the left dressed up as fear of Obama cultists. Obama has to be President of everyone, not just the left.   This is something Bush was too dumb and arrogant to grasp and it almost destroyed the country.

But hildner, he ain't leaving Iraq.  Not in 2009, and not by 2013.  What else ya got?

As for talking to Iran face to face, I got a bunch of dough that says it doesn't happen.  How can it - the only thing the Bushies require is that the Iranians stop enriching uranium (and not just the Bushies, the whole "world community.").  The Persians have told us to go p*ss up a rope.  How, then, can President Obama sit down with the mullahs?  To what end?  To say that he did?  Thereby allowing him to say, after the bombs fall, hey, at least I tried?

I'll bet you 50 bucks Butchie, that we leave Iraq, except for a small contingent, by 2012 at the latest.  They can takle care of themselves and are well on the way to doing so, even if it won't exactly resemble 1776.  Who knows, maybe it kind of does.  Did you know that General Washington hung 1000 soldiers as deserters?  1000.  That were documented anyway.

"Hey I tried" is something real butchie, at least it eventually buys us some help if we need it.  If we have to keep financing these terrorism and resource wars ourselves, the Chinese might as well just come in and set up shop in the White House and the Fed. They'll be in effectively in charge (God knows we aren't giving up our Wal Mart cheap goods anytime soon).  

It's a bit of a campaign gesture, I'll admit, exciting we primary voters and horrifying the heavy breathers on Fox, etc.  But its also a symbol of a different perspective, of someone willing to build up that soft power again (soft power means my paycheck is bigger some day).  It also counted as brave coming when it did.  Imagine Kerry or any of the rest of the cowardly Dem leadership saying anything of the sort.  We're so starved for anything outside of mealy-mouthed bootlicking to the right out here, it was thrilling.