Barack Obama Brings the Change America Needs Tour to Lebanon, VA: Part 1

By: KathyinBlacksburg
Published On: 9/10/2008 6:02:25 AM

The skies over Lebanon, VA, opened up this morning and afternoon, unleashing soaking rains  and a dreary, humid day. Thunderstorms threatened to crash Barack Obama's party in the coalfields...until shortly after 5 PM.  By then the sun shone.  And Southwest Virginians were thinking about change.

By then the enthusiastic crowd had erupted in chants of "Obama! Obama!," "Yes we can," and "Fired up and ready to go."  Ralph Stanley endorsed Barack Obama to thunderous applause.  Cecil Roberts, union leader and proud "community organizer" got the place electrified.  But then Rick Boucher worked the crowd the most effectively I've ever seen him do.  So many superlatives.  But the man of the hour, Barack Obama, our once-in-a-lifetime candidate, strode in to Rick's intro, worked the crowd, and hugged supporters.  And from that moment, no one in the crowd wanted the event to end.

Part stump speech, part town hall, Obama melded both his elements smoothly, hammering home the glaring weakness of the Republican case, the lost opportunities of eight years of Republican rule and the so-like-Bush McCain support for his GOP president. John McCain's had 26 years to do something about the problems America faces, Obama reminded.  But McCain hasn't done anything to change the course of things.  Why would we think he'll do differently if elected?  
On several fronts, Obama showed how McCain does not equal change: His tax policies for the rich, his lobbyist-rich campaign (with several lobbyists running McCain's campaign) contrast with Obama's refusal to take money from lobbyists.  On health care, McCain and the Republicans keep telling why we cannot have health care when we are the only industrialized country in the world not having universal coverage.  McCain wants to "give" folks a $5,000 tax credit (for buying insurance), but it costs $12,000 a year, Obama reminded.  

Similarly, on the economy (jobs, markets, banking) the nation is weary under Republican mismanagement. Americans, Obama reminded, are better off under Democrats and he cited the research to prove it.  Obama explained some of his health care initiatives (more on that tomorrow).

McCain would spend $10 Billion dollars a month, but he can't see how the resources could be put to better use.  And he doesn't get that it's unfair for Americans to be told they cannot have health care when Iraq sits on its oil investments while we spend our treasury in that country.  Obama also mentioned the trade deficit with China as posing problems for American workers.  Instead of saying no we can't, McCain and the Republicans could look at how medical bills are hurting Americans.  

On energy, we need to approach technological change leading to energy independence as we did to put a man on the moon.  We can do it.  We can solve the nation's energy problems with a judicious mix of energy sources: Wind, American natural gas, geothermal, solar, wind, hydro-power, biodiesel, and nuclear (if storage issues can be remediated).

Obama touched on numerous other issues, among them, guns.  He made sure voters who turned out to hear him make no mistake that he supports the Second Amendment.  He believes in background checks, but not collecting Americans' guns.

It took until after 7:35 to be able to get out of the parking lot tonight.  It seemed anticlimactic to begin the long (nearly three hour) drive home.  As I drove south on US 19, Barack Obama's helicopter flew up and over the highway, winging him away from SW Virginia...until next time.   But I have a feeling local Obama HQs are going to get some new volunteers this week.  

[Note: Coming up--Part 2.  I'll also post more photos.]


Comments



Kathy... (Flipper - 9/10/2008 7:25:56 AM)
sounds like you had a blast!  Great report!


You've got it all wrong, Kathy (Catzmaw - 9/10/2008 7:54:44 AM)
I've spent the whole morning listening to morning "news" shows, and according to them (specifically MSNBC's Morning Joe), the only thing Obama talked about yesterday was lipstick on a pig, which was code for a sexist attack on Palin.  This morning I've sat through an hour of Joe blathering about how Obama needs to talk about the economy and all the other issues important to the voters this year and stop talking about Palin.  He brought in Pat Buchanan, too, who even as I type is rattling on about how everyone cheered when Obama said it, how that paragon of neutrality the New York Post called it the Boer War, etc., etc.

Now Joe's telling Pat that Dems don't attack "these stories aggressively enough."  Well, you know, Joe, it might be helpful if the press would report what Obama's saying and stop reporting only a five second sound bite out of a 30 minute speech and trying to figure out "what it all means".

OMG, now they've got Ruth Marcus from the Post to "analyze" the statement and discuss Palin's working motherhood.  I'm gonna barf.  Way to NOT talk about the issues, media!  Blather on.

Great account, Kathy, and I'm so happy for you that you got to go.  If it hadn't been for your diary and other coverage here at RK I wouldn't have had a clue about what Obama really said.



Corporate media=worthless (Lowell - 9/10/2008 7:57:25 AM)
Do not read, do not watch, do not pass go.  Garbage.


This is why I end up just going over the C-Span (Catzmaw - 9/10/2008 8:01:41 AM)
A lot of goofy people call in, but at least they have guests who say their piece, the interviewer passes no judgment and does no analysis, and the callers are focused on the guest's message.


Couldn't agree more (about CSPAN, unless (KathyinBlacksburg - 9/10/2008 9:25:33 AM)
you include the call-in shows.  They may "balance" (sort of) the calls, but the commentary is nearly always from the conservative frame.


So frustrating (aznew - 9/10/2008 8:21:12 AM)
Great report, Kathy.

I am beginning to think that the Democrats need to take a page out of the Republican's playbook and simply ignore the media except for MSNBC.

Let it be known to CNN, CBS and ABC that there will be no more campaign officials, no more leaks, no more off the record discussions until they show they are willing to provide fair coverage. Fair coverage means:

1. Accuracy
2. Calling a lie a lie
3. Not allowing operatives to simply get on TV and spin, but force them to answer the questions that are asked directly.

Otherwise, the Obama campaign should simply say, "If all you want to do is let someone spin for 45 seconds, here is a junior person from our communications dept. that can do that. We will save our real news for MSNBC, Keith Olberrmann and Rachel Maddow.

Same would apply to Politico, WP, NYT, LAT, Trib and on and on.

The problem here is not Fox -- everyone knows where they are coming from. The problem here is the so called non-partisan media who allow the GOP to spin, spin, spin while the Democrats try to talk about issues. Then, when Democrats finally try to respond to spin, they say, "You need to talk about issues."

Stop it, Democrats. You don't need these outlets any longer. You have a network of web sites read by milions of people to get your message out in an honest, thoughtful way.

Why is Barack Obama going on Bill O'Reilly's show, but not giving a sit down to Josh Marshall or Matt Stoller. Virginia's important? Talk to Lowell or Ben.

We will continue to get dinged by the media until we adopt this strategy.



aznew, you raise a great point (KathyinBlacksburg - 9/10/2008 9:27:05 AM)
We should write to the Obama campaign and urge them to not give FAUX "credibility" by showing up there.  Just cut-em off.
No more Dems ever.  Just let them talk to themselves.


Notice how MSNBC caved (KathyinBlacksburg - 9/10/2008 9:30:05 AM)
to a little GOPher pressure.  It yanked Keith Olbermann  from co-anchoring political night (election/convention etc) coverage.
Because he muttered on an open mic that Scarborough should "get a shovel."  It's true.  Scarborough is a blatant partisan and shouldn't be commenting for MSNBC on our convention OR the Republicans either.

But yanking Tweety from the same co-anchor was a good decision.



And no more Bill O'LIElly (Lowell - 9/10/2008 9:45:24 AM)
The more I watch of his "interview" with Barack Obama, the more I think it was a huge mistake.  Putting aside his political ideology, O'Reilly is simply a rude, unprofessional jerk.


You can say that again ..... (ub40fan - 9/10/2008 10:01:49 AM)
Bill O'LIELY stinks like dead fish in newspaper wrapper.


Couldn't agree more (Houdon - 9/10/2008 10:58:28 AM)
Watching O'Reilly's treatment of Obama was nauseating.  O'Reilly is so consumed by his own self-importance that he tries to make each "interview" into a one-on-one debate.  I think the best thing a newsman can do is to avoid making himself part of the news.  


Or CNN, IMHO (aznew - 9/10/2008 10:59:50 AM)
The problem with Faux is that it is not a legitimate news outlet, but a propaganda arm of the GOP. Lowell is right -- Obama made a big mistake going on O'Reilly, although the problem there is that O'Reilly is an effective showman, but not particularly intelligent, so for Obama to communicate with him required him stooping to O'Reilly level. The results were that Obama comes off looking bad.

As for CNN, their problem, IMHO, is they have simply failed to act like responsible journalists. I urge people to compare the tape of Campbell Brown and Tucker Bounds -- an example of good journalism (no matter what you think of Brown overall) in which she challenged a spokesman to back-up his spin, and the episode yesterday with Paul Begala and Alex Castellano, in which CNN reporter John Roberts seemed to not have a clue why Obama's message that McCain was lying couldn't get through.

The Democrats no longer need the media to get their message out to voters. They should cut off CNN, the WP, the NYT, the WSJ, Wewsweek, Time -- all of them -- until these outlets demonstrate that tey are real journalists seeking truth. The sooner the Democrats understand this and act accordingly, the sooner the mainstream will shape up its operations.

We've got to stop thinking that they will just wake up one day and change.

Otherwise, we'll all be sitting there Nov. 5, depressed, complaining about how the media screwed us again.



Hi, catzmaw (KathyinBlacksburg - 9/10/2008 9:24:02 AM)
I read that too.  And the context had nothing to do with Palin.  He was talking about McCain trying to dress up "change" and also the way McC has tried to appropriate the change mantra.  Seriously, the media are "reading that into" it because the McCain campaign had a "conference call" and he put the heat on to build up that interpretation. Of course, they fall in line.


That's the way it goes (Catzmaw - 9/10/2008 9:51:04 AM)
I've already been on another website this morning trying to explain this stuff to people.  It's a rather conservative, military oriented site, and already there's been a message thread started blasting Obama for calling Palin a pig.  I had to get in there and tell them what a crock it is.  This is because most of the media outlets are only playing the sound bite and taking it completely out of context.  This forces the Obama people to explain the context.  Then the media hacks come back and declare that the Obama campaign is struggling and focusing on Palin and not McCain - untrue, as anyone actually listening to the speech can tell - and then there's more crap about how the Obama campaign has to get back the center which it actually hasn't lost because it's not doing what the media hacks say it's doing.  Although to Chuck Todd's credit, when he was asked about it he called it a manufactured faux controversy and wondered why everyone was even talking about it.

We need more push-back from Obama reps on these shows.  Instead of just answering the controversy, challenge the media idiots and ask them bluntly why they're even going along with these charades.  Ask them why, if the context shows the assumptions are wrong, the media isn't playing the entire bite instead of the teeny "controversial" part.  Are they journalists or shit-stirrers? (Apologies for the vulgarity, but I couldn't think of a better way to put it).  



Overall I think OBAMA is on to something.... (ub40fan - 9/10/2008 9:59:52 AM)
The way Sarah Palin was presented to the public was essentially a fraud. Karl Rove said it best when he was bashing Tim Kaine, except that Sarah Palin is orders of magnitude unqualified compare to TK to be Vice President (given Rove's rationale).

She scars Ed Koch .... and me.

It's not that I don't like Palin .... she might be fun to hang around with (probably not), but at this stage in her life ... she is hardly Presidential Timber.

Hardly a "reformer" and apparently fairly vindictive (ask the local librarian). As of yet ... other then some revealing Youtube videos ... Sarah Palin hasn't spoken beyond contrived culture war speeches lipstick and all.

The Obama campaign was very nice to her after her initial introduction. But as the truth about her (and her record are becoming better known) .... it's time to define her along with the rest of the Republican ticket .... I think a PIG with Lipstick was BRILLIANT.

Size up Palin for what she is .... a small town politician who hasn't the experience or the vision to be Commander in Chief. We're running against Karl Rove 3.0 and that's not change .... it's John McCain doing and saying anything he can to win. Sarah Palin is just a surrogate for Bush's right wing nutjobs.

Paint the ugly picture of the Republican ticket and use lipstick as we go forward!!   The crowd got it ...... and the media is reporting it.

GObama !!!