Changing the venue?
Rumor abounds that Obama will accept at Invesco
By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Where do you think Obama should make his acceptance speech?
Photo by Preston Gannaway
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama speaks in July at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
The image is striking -- Barack Obama standing at Invesco Field at Mile High with upward of 76,000 people watching him give his historic speech accepting the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
Reports were rampant Thursday about plans supposedly in the works to shift Obama's acceptance speech from the Pepsi Center to Invesco Field. Furthermore, Obama campaign officials never denied it.
"No decisions have been made," Obama spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said. And in the absence of a denial, the rumor that began with the blog demconwatchblog.com continued to spread.
"Thursday in Denver will be a historic day," was the only elaboration Gilson would offer, referring to the final night of the Democratic National Convention.
The Associated Press, citing two unnamed "people in a position to know details of the idea," said the switch is under consideration.
Mayor John Hickenlooper said he hadn't heard the rumor directly from the Obama campaign, but added it would be "amazing" if it happened.
"It would be difficult, but not impossible," Hickenlooper said. "You would have to adapt. You would have to make sure you got the right people in the right places - if it's something the Obama campaign wants to do."
The Pepsi Center's Web site says it can hold 21,000 people for special events. Invesco Field, where the Denver Broncos play, can seat more than 76,000.
Add potential field seating and that number would grow. Far more people could see the presidential nominee than a somewhat more select crowd at the Pepsi Center - playing into Obama's campaign of grass- roots empowerment.
Another rumor
Earlier Thursday, Obama shot down another rumor that surfaced Wednesday that his campaign plans to cut the Democratic National Convention down to three days from the usual four-day event.
"That's not coming from our campaign," Obama said in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News before the Invesco Field question came to light. "We expect we'll have the same four days that have been the tradition for a long time - four full days."
The Los Angeles Times reported that Obama campaign officials were looking to have the nomination speech on Wednesday evening instead of Thursday night.
The rationale, according to the newspaper, was to put more separation between the Democratic convention, which ends Aug. 28, and the Republican National Convention, which begins Sept. 1 - giving Obama more of a bounce coming out of the event in Denver.
But so far, it's not going to happen.
The two conventions might be closer together than in past years, but there is another storyline that could develop.
Historic date
If Obama gives his nomination speech on Aug. 28, it would come on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic "I Have a Dream" speech. Though campaign officials are aware of the significance, they are mum on any plans to link the two events.
Chris Lopez, spokesman for the Denver 2008 Host Committee, said they were continuing with the original plan of having the nomination speech at the Pepsi Center. Convention planners get access starting Monday to begin build-out of the Pepsi Center for the event.
With less than two months to go, the host committee is still raising money. It fell short of the contractual obligation of raising $40.6 million in cash and $9.7 million of in-kind services by June 16 - though Hickenlooper said that since Obama became the nominee, things have gotten smoother.
Obama said he is not worried about the cash crunch.
"I have not been involved in the day-to-day organization of the convention, as you might expect. I was pretty busy with the primary and wasn't even sure I'd be the nominee," Obama said.
"So now that the nomination has been decided, we'll work with the mayor and all the other parties involved to make sure it goes off without a hitch."
Obama on the record
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, on his way to an event in Fargo, N.D., addressed two issues important to Western voters - energy and foreclosures - in a phone interview with the Rocky Thursday morning.
Rocky: One of the things John McCain has talked about is nuclear energy as a possible solution. What are your thoughts on nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source?
Obama: "Obviously, the problem we have with nuclear energy is storage of radioactive material, and what I've said is if we can find effective ways to store nuclear material - ways that are safe and secure - then there is no reason why we wouldn't want to pursue nuclear energy. But that requires an improvement of current technologies that we have not invested in, and that's one of the reasons why I've called for $15 billion a year over 10 years to invest not only in the research and development required to make nuclear power more secure, but solar, wind and biodiesel and making our cars more energy efficient and improving our electricity grid. Those are all going to be critical components of a comprehensive energy policy that will cut our dependence on foreign oil and deal with the crisis of global warming as well."
Colorado has been facing the issue of foreclosures - according to RealtyTrac, we rank seventh in the country for the rate of foreclosures at one in every 388 houses. If you get elected in November and take office in January and those numbers aren't going down, what kind of relief do you think you can offer in the crisis and how quickly do you think that relief could be put into place?
"Well, we should be putting something into place now. There is a bill working its way through the Senate. We should not have waited this long to get that bill passed. It's a bill I strongly support that would give FHA power to work with borrowers and lenders to work out fixed-rate mortgages that are affordable to keep more people in their homes. I've also proposed a $10 billion home foreclosure prevention fund that would accomplish the same goal. If we can stabilize the housing market, that's going to go a long way to improving our economy as a whole."
Does that include freezing adjustable rates?
"Every expert I've talked to and advocate for homeowners has concluded a freeze on mortgage rates - adjustable rates - would have the potential of sending mortgage rates sky high and could actually make it even more difficult for new buyers to get into the market, which would further depress housing prices, so I don't think that's the right solution."
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
July 3, 2008
6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
dummas writes:
if they are thinking of having the speech at invesco field to accommodate more people, why don't they charge a nominal fee to help pay for expenses to the city...or is that to much common sense?
July 3, 2008
9:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Smart thinking, no doubt. Add security costs and debt to a bill you can't currently pay by changing venues willy-nilly. Top-notch strategy.
Hey, doesn't this also coincide with the 40th anniversity of something else? Hmmm. Seems to escape me now...some help, David?
July 3, 2008
10:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
OLB writes:
I'm a Republican, so I don't really care where Obama makes his speech.
However, I wonder if Invesco would really be the best place to make such an important speech. I thought that the way it was built made the acoustics unfriendly to concerts. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I thought the "Rocky Mountain Thunder" increased crowd noise from the top down, but made it difficult to amplify noise from the field going up. Wasn't that the issue that befuddled the Eagles concert when the stadium first opened?
Anyway, cutting the convention from four to three days might actually help the Democrats make this the "greenist" convention ever.
July 3, 2008
11:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
aRe writes:
I'm not sure how they would fill the 76000+ seating at Invesco - but if they could - brilliant stratagy considering how lack luster the Republican convention is going to be.
I mean you're going to have a Republican party who really can't even have their OWN sitting President or Vice President address the convention - they're only hope will be to dig up Ronald Reagan.
July 4, 2008
5:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrCrush writes:
I love Denver and to think that this huge stain in history will be made in this town just sends me over the edge. Osama Hussien Obama is no more qualified to lead this country than the 76,000 misguided people who will fill Invesco for this sad event. Obama is the biggest "slickster" politician of the modern day. Heaven forbid if he's elected, I hope the Democrats will enjoy handing over more of your paycheck every week to this idiot's regime. You lemming-like followers better hope the next airplane misses the White House, because they'll be back on our soil if enough Americans continue to be hypnotized by this man's scam.
July 4, 2008
6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Always interesting to see a post from the ebonics professor. Good to know the "smartest person in the room" is drawing the most illiterate of voters to his cause. Very comforting. I would never portray Balack Osama as the smartest guy in the room; but, I would agree he would hands-down be voted "most likely to sell a used car to a used car salesman."
Wouldn't drawing a large crowd to the Diaphram (oops, sorry - Invesco) cause the carbon footprint of the convention to be directly responsible for melting the polar icecaps, or something like that? Scary.
July 4, 2008
7:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
drkenne writes:
Further away from the caged "protest zone"? Another attempt to stiffle the voices of free speech and dissent? Will the voices of 76,000 be louder than the voices of protest?
July 4, 2008
7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
It is extremely historic; it's a day I thought I would never see. It's a good day for America; it tells the world that struggles, that America is willing to live out her contract to all peoples. However, both partys leave much to be desired in substance, character, and ability to lead the most powerful nation on the earth, through these perilious times in world events. It is less than stellar the selection of canidates, from both partys, for our nations top job. Somewhere in America, a man sits idle who would truly be a great leader. Is the job that undesirable? If not, why then do America's best refrain from running?
July 4, 2008
7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrCrush writes:
Froward69
You so prove my point. The ignorant leftists in this country are just like cows following the pack. Those precious polar ice caps aren't gone and if they were it was nature-driven... not from anybody's carbon footprint. For the environmental wackos to think that the human race is powerful enough to change the course of nature is so categorically absurd it's funny. Wow you are so misguided and misinformed. And, I assume you think McCain is a terroist. Good luck with your OSAMA Obama, he is the presidential choice of all the best terroists in the middle east. Al Qaeda, Hamas and the rest of them will cheer his victory. I feel very sorry for you Froward69.
July 4, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
By the way, isn't every party nomination speech historic? Just checking. I mean, if I were to research historical archives for previous party nomination acceptance speeches, I'd still be able to find them, right? Or, will all previous speeches be purged in favor of this single, grandiose, historic, in-the-vortex-of-the-diaphram speech be the only speech remaining for future posterity? Will David Montero refer to John McCain's speech as historic? Tune in and see if sensationalism carries the day in equal proportions....
froward - your abuse of John McCain's name proves you will celebrate Aug 28, 1955 far more fervently. Than even 1968.
July 4, 2008
8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
and how about those rain storms...hmmm the idea of 71000 soaked and confused democrats trying to find the government poncho line...where's FEMA when you need them?
July 4, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
froward69,
You claim that Republicans use fear as a political tool but I accuse the democrats of doing the same. You tell our kids and us that the world is doomed, our cities will flood, our crops will die and the polar caps are melting unless we take drastic measures. That global warming is here and that everyone must make sacrafices to save the planet.
Are you, Al Gore and the democrats not fear mongering to make millions and to win elections?
July 4, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
forward: Oh, I thought you abused John McCain's name in previous posts and were pointing a hypocritical finger at everyone else for doing that - sorry. Maybe that's just your normal spelling errors. That's all on me.
Wait. What if you really meant that Obama isn't actually black, he's bi-racial? So, my referral to him as black was, in reality, yet another flip-flop of positions? Dang. So hard to keep up with this guy. Quite confusing.
July 4, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
RS writes:
Obama needs to break from the convention center as a symbolic break from the Democratic party and its control freaks. He is running as a "new" kind of politician, not beholden to the party and the many angry people who will fill the convention center. The delegates are also a controlled group, but still party power players who have been selected through a gender and raced based quota system. Obama claims to be opposed to this system in his "race" speech, while not actually opposing it. By moving to a three-times larger venue, he can dilute the crowd and further disguise the true intentions of his party and the contempt they have for both him and the nation.
July 4, 2008
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
froward - have your man algore lead into the nomination speech with his rationalization behind this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080704/...
After all, he did cast the deciding vote on the ethanol issue and has invested heavily in companies in the business. But, what the heck? What are a few million starving people and food riots around the world to the righteously annointed?
July 4, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
froward69, like you said the climate has always changed for thousands of years. We just disagree that human use of carbon emitting fuels have a "massive" effect when compared to volcanoes and other nautural occurences.
You call it "substantiated concern". You blame the "oil companies making billions polluting our environment."
I call what you saying fear mongering. You are trying to create more big government, government regulations and government programs so people like you can take away our freedoms under the disguise saving the world.
July 4, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrCrush writes:
Froward69
"Rule by fear is indeed the republican way, learned well from the likes of vermin such as hitler, alqueda and the taliban. all one and the same in my book. I REFUSE to be ruled by fear, as you are."
I suggest you check your ideology handbook. I think you'll find the above mentioned scum bags are derived from the other side of the political spectrum. Careful who you align yourself with come November. Liberals equate "change" with a soft stance on important issues. That transaltes into more terrorist attacks in this country and across the globe. Please rid yourself of the "let's all join hands" mentality. All that will do is line us all up and make it easier for the terrorists to mow us down. If this "fear" label you give me means I'm afraid of terrorists - then you're right and you better be scared as well. They hate us and live to see us all dead. Osama bin Obama will play into their hands like a cheap violin. My god why can't you see it for what it is. Take off those rose-colored glasses and step on them.
July 4, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
"I have a dream," that the way he governs his finances for his campaign will be how he governs the finances of the US.
It fell short of the contractual obligation of raising $40.6 million in cash and $9.7 million of in-kind services by June 16.
So if this is for the Pepsi Center, would Invesco Field be more? It is a difference of 55,000 seats. They didn't meet the financial obligation for the small place so now they are going for a bigger place? Is this how big his ego has been inflated after winning the primary?
July 4, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrCrush writes:
Froward69
You are so brainwashed. It's very interesting to watch people like you justify issues while ignoring the simple facts. "Dialogue"... you must be smoking in Boulder today. You don't come close to understanding the hate these people have for us. I'm glad you don't possess that capacity to hate, but don't ignore or be ignorant to the fact that they do. Diplomacy and dialogue just plays into their goal to wipe us out. Hopefully Israel will erase Iran off the planet here soon. That would be helpful but not the kind of passive approach you promote. Enjoy our flag today. Despite our apparent political differences I wish you joy in your life. Have a wonderful 4th of July.
July 4, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
Enjoy our flag today.
For tomorrow it may change, just as our national anthem has, according to some.
July 4, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
intothelens writes:
Hatfields vs. McCoys....screw all you "party extremists." Stop lobbing handfuls of BS like pissy monkeys. Step aside for those who want to come together, to move forward. Put the best person in office, regardless of affiliation, and put your country before your party. I dare you to find the courage....
July 4, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nugget writes:
It's a GREAT idea about the stadium. Then have the Denver Broncos on one side of the field and the Raiders on the other, with Barack Hussein Obama on the 50 yard line, blow a wistle, have both teams rush to see who can get to Obama first, tackle him hard, hit him again, then toss him around from player to player and try to get him into the end zone. When accomplished, then they bounce him like a football and throw him into the crowd. The one who catches him can sell him on EBay.
July 4, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
mandzoco writes:
Some interesting historical events which have occurred on August 28th (source Answers.com)
1916 - Germany declares war on Romania.
1924 - Georgian opposition stages the August Uprising against the Soviet Union.
1943 - In Denmark, a general strike against the Nazi occupation is started. Declares war on Germany.
1955 - Black teenager Emmett Till is murdered in Mississippi, allegedly for whistling to a white woman and calling her baby.
1963 - During a 200,000-person civil rights rally in at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., Martin Luther King, Jr. gives his famous I have a dream speech.
1964 - The Philadelphia race riot begins.
1968 - Riots in Chicago, Illinois, during the Democratic National Convention.
1971 - The dollar is allowed to float against the yen for the first time.
1979 - An IRA bomb explodes on the Grand Place in Brussels.
1981 - The National Centers for Disease Control announce a high incidence of Pneumocystis and Kaposi's sarcoma in gay men. Soon, these will be recognized as symptoms of an immune disorder, which will be called AIDS.
1986 - Stage of siege declared in Bolivia.
1986 - US Navy officer Jerry A. Whitworth is sentenced to 365 years imprisonment for espionage for the Soviet Union.
1988 - Ramstein airshow disaster: Three aircraft of the Frecce Tricolori demonstration team collide and fall into the crowd. 69 are killed.
1990 - Iraq declares Kuwait to be its newest province.
1990 - The Plainfield Tornado: An F5 tornado hits in Plainfield, Illinois, and Joliet, Illinois, killing 28 people.
1993 - A dam breaks in Qinghai, China. 223 die.
1993 - 76 die in an airplane crash in Tajikistan.
1995 - A mortar shell kills 38 people in Sarajevo, Bosnia.
1996 - Britons Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales, are divorced.
1998 - Pakistan's National Assembly passes a constitutional amendment to make the "Qur'an and Sunnah" the "supreme law" but the bill is defeated in the Senate.
2005 - Hurricane Katrina upgraded to Category 5 storm; city of New Orleans put under its first mandatory evacuation order
2008 -??
Perhaps, Obama and the DNCC will change the venue but as asked before, who will be paying for all of the additional security etc.
The Democratic Party is currently a mininium of 11 million dollars short as is, for this convention. Perhaps they should ask the taxpayers for public assistance, and further burden the us with unnecessary waste. The truth is, if you couldn't pay for something, I doubt your creditors would let you have a party and agree you that you could pay them later, without any tangible assests, unless you have brokered some secret deal.
IF, OBAMA were a great leader, he would adopt the attitude "the buck stops here" and tell the DNCC, no, to Invesco field and have them downsize the convention so it's within the DNCC's financial capabilities. That would truly impress me, but I know it won't happen.
July 4, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Brilliant idea.
I'd love to see McCain try to duplicate it without paying folks to show up.
July 4, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Backward, I don't know how it works in the Democrat Utopia, but in the real world 180 proof is pure alcohol. No such thing as 400 proof.
July 4, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
SDaedalus writes:
I suspect this stadium event -will- happen. Its too potent of a political symbol to pass-up for the Democrats, especially given GOP's tepid support of their candidate. And with the one-sided turn-out in Denver-area caucuses for Obama, there won't be any problem filling the stadium with his supporters. I wouldn't be suprised if there are screens in overflow lots outside the stadium.
Even if it weren't the 45th anniversary of MLK's famous speech, there is legitimate novelty in having either party nominate someone other than a white guy after 230+ years that makes this a once-in-lifetime/must-see-TV event akin to the moon landing. In fairness, it would have been equally novel/historic if the GOP had been the first to nominate a candiate from a racial minority, female, etc.
For the Dems, the easy political points are scored just from the comparison of a cheering stadium full of Obama supporters against the expected crowd McCain will face (no doubt the GOP is pondering how to arrange their own open-air stadium attempt to avoid this...and I imagine they could fill one up too, but it will take more work, and maybe some $ incentives).
More uncertain is how the MLK annivesary/symbolism will play politically. The key question is whether there are more Independent/swing-GOP voters who are pleased -or- scared that America has progressed so much closer to MLK's dream that for the very first time the racial background of the candidates is different.
If they go the stadium route, the MLK-BHO parallels will be amplified, and that could break either for or against Obama. It's easy enough to identify those folks who won't vote for an Obama -ever-, and their attempts to fan make-believe hysteria won't move many key swing voters, given the real challenges the country faces. But Obama is hoping/needing to nudge older, more conservative (in the old, pre-GOP meaning of that word) voters who in 2007 might have said "I'll never live to see the day when a Black man is president"...to the point where they say in 2008 "I never imagined I'd vote for a Black man for president." These are voters without strong racial animus, but merely inherently anxious about too-much-too-fast social change. And if they are straddling the fence between the candidates, if they remember hearing the original MLK speech thinking it was some far-out pipe-dream, if Obama's campaign plays up the relatively short span of time (okay, for many 45 years is way too long) from then until actually having a Black president, those folks might be tempted to pull the lever for McCain, more out of the instinct for comfort than reason.
July 4, 2008
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
fluxtube writes:
August 28th, 1963 - Martin Luther King, Jr. gives his famous I have a dream speech.
Look for 'bama to make an "I have a dream" speech. I'm sure his newly bloated ego makes him think he's the second coming of MLK.
July 4, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nugget writes:
Forgot to ask: Will Obama have the Black National Anthem played at the stadium? Will he get the same black singer who sang it yesterday instead of the United States of America's National Anthem which angers Denver's mayor and governor? Need to have this clarified before the convention. But don't ask Obama as he changed his mind too often.
July 4, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Froward at 9:33, clyde at 12:48: 2 proof = 1% alcohol. Therefore, 400 proof is impossible indeed. The highest theoretical proof is 200. But ethyl alcohol is highly hydrophilic. It will attract and attach itself to water molecules in the air. Therefore, the highest proof generally available ethyl alcohol is 180 proof (90%).
Regarding Invesco Field. The Broncos play there (or will pretend to) August 22. Their next home game is two weeks later. If certain items are pre-positioned, that ought to be enough time to set up the acceptance speech, tear down, and recondition the turf in plenty of time for the next home game. If they lose, they can blame the Democrats.
If Obama goes trough with this, I think he'd have no problem filling the seats. After allowing for delegates, how to determine who got the remaining seats would be interesting. Plus, the taxpayers own the stadium, but the Broncos receive 100% of all net proceeds, even from non-football events. So, all those Obama supporters would be benefitting the Bowlen Clan through the stadium rental, concessions, parking. etc.
July 4, 2008
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
peterpi,
Thanks for the chemistry lesson. I never knew why you could not get 100% pure alcohol.
Regarding Pat's Playpen (diaphragm, err Invesco field) that would be outstanding for an evil-capitalist-pig to financially benefit from the party of Steven A. Douglas ;-)
Thanks again,
Scott
July 4, 2008
6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
renaldo_phlegm writes:
Ethanol does absorb water and interact with it, but saying it "attaches to water" isn't very accurate as the interactions are weak and very transient. When you heat an ethanol/water mixture (distillation) the alcohol boils off before the water and can be condensed in a concentrated form upon cooling, leaving the water behind . Also, 200 proof ethanol is not "theoretical" and is the major form of ethanol commercially produced. The second most common is 190 proof, and for food/beverage manufacturer the most common is 192 proof.
And I'll drink to Obama at Invesco ;-)
www.pharmco-prod.com/pages/ep1.pdf
190 vs. 200 Proof
All Ethanol products, whether pure or denatured, natural or synthetic, has a proof associated with the product description. The proof is a measure of the water content of the Ethanol portion of the product and any level of proof can be manufactured based upon the amount of water added (referred to as dilution or cut
of water). To define it another way, the proof is a measure of the Ethanol content of Alcohol and is calculated as two times (2x) the actual Ethanol concentration by volume. Industrially, the majority of all Ethanol products, whether pure or denatured can be classified as 200 proof or 190 proof. The third most
common proof is 192. This is used mainly in beverage grade applications.
July 4, 2008
7:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
ezekiel777 writes:
responding to the story's headline: do you really want me to tell BO where he can go and what he can do when he gets there?