Colorado Still In Play: Obamessiah In Denver; **Update--Hillary On Friday

So much for the MSM narrative . . .

**Update 2--to drive home the closeness of the battle for Colorado, Hillary will also be in Aurora on Friday

**Update--Why does Obama need to come to Colorado? I thought his acceptance at the DNC and recent polls just about wrapped it up for him. The appearances of Palin and McCain is understandable given that they trail in a state that has been a "battleground" only recently (2004, 2006), and refutes the notion that they have given up on the state for Electoral Votes in Pennsylvania. Biden's campaign swing can be seen as an effective, if somewhat limited counter, to help keep the local media from blanketing the Republicans. But Obama? Maybe they're not so confident after all . . .

The nomination acceptance speech at Invesco Field will be tough to beat:

Sen. Barack Obama is expected to hold a rally Sunday in Civic Center Park, where two of the last three Democratic presidential candidates to win Colorado held rousing political gatherings.

The campaign today confirmed Obama will be in Colorado Sunday, but did not release a location or other details.

A spokeswoman for the city's parks and recreation department, however, said the campaign had secured a permit for Civic Center.

SP and the Peoples Press Collective will be on hand for coverage. Stay tuned.

Expect a large turnout with the Denver Broncos on a bye week.

Obama Propaganda--Make Your Own

Yes we can--copy the cool kids in the MSM.

Make your own:



Or this:



Slapstick Politics--Obamessiah approved!

Titanic Battle Rages On As Democrats Race Toward DNC

No, not Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama. An identity battle.


“The Democratic Wild West at Denver”//Edward Windsor Kemble//Harper's Weekly//July 4, 1908, pp. 18-19

It seems that Democrats can't quite decide just exactly how the Democratic National Convention host city should be marketed:

How to portray the West?

For a party hoping to pick up the battleground states of Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, Denver's selection as host of the 2008 Democratic National Convention offers plenty of positives. But focusing on Old West symbols to appeal to rural voters risks alienating the many metro-area residents who are more at home on a bicycle or a scooter than on a horse riding the range.

"Yes, I sense a tension," said Mark Squier, the producer responsible for crafting the political messages displayed inside the Pepsi Center, where the convention is to be held. "It's going to be a bit of a tightrope walk, balancing off the new and the old of the West."

A crystallizing example of the tension occurred this month in a heated, behind-the-scenes dispute between officials with Denver's host committee — the locals responsible for bringing the convention to town — and the major sponsor of the event's biggest party, the so-called Media Welcoming Party.

Mindful of the power of Old West symbols, U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver wanted to stage an exhibition rodeo during the party. U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, a ranch owner from the San Luis Valley usually seen in boots and a white Stetson, wanted a cattle-drive parade like the one that begins the annual National Western Stock Show.

William Dean Singleton, publisher of The Denver Post and chief executive of MediaNews Group Inc., one of the nation's largest newspaper chains, threatened to pull his financial support from the media party, saying he didn't want the media's first impression of Denver to be that of a "cow town," several sources familiar with the dispute confirmed.

And I thought that the Democrats had bigger problems to be worried about.

I guess not.

Besides, Westword has been using a cow on its annual "Best of Denver" issue for years.

When Howard Dean led the call for naming Denver the site of 2008's DNC, it was with an eye to repositioning the Democrat's "brand"--something distinct and in-touch with voters inside the more "metropolitan" coasts--and not a simple rehash of East and Left-coast liberalism or its associated imagery. This was to be the opportunity for choosing a candidate at the foot of those "purple mountains'majesty" in an increasingly "purple" state.

When the local hosting committee can't agree on what "message" will be conveyed--how the host city will be framed from a marketing viewpoint to the residents of that same city--one detects that like their rival candidates' struggle for the nomination, there is a battle raging within the party at a much deeper level, something they don't want to admit. Nice to see that it is not just the Republicans who are experiencing a bit of an identity crisis.

As we can see from the cartoon nearly a century ago, not much has changed in the way of perceptions in the 100 years since the city last hosted the Democrats' nominating convention. Denver may still be a "cow town" in many ways, but she won't be a one-trick pony.

Drunkablog has a similar take, and notes that Recreate '68 may do some "branding" all on its own.

Obama Propaganda

You too can own some, well, propaganda:



Easy to photoshop that one, and someone already has--with effective results (via Michelle Malkin).

One correspondent and tipster JD had this to say about the wilting power of Obama's propaganda platitudes message of hope and change, and the inability to explain it:

The banality of modern politics never ceases to amaze me. As I have said several times already, this election, and especially the candidacy of Obama, has left me feeling as if I have completely lost touch with the American people. He speaks in nothing but empty platitudes, and the people love him for it. He makes empty promises he knows he cannot keep, and they adore him for it. He blows his nose, and they cheer him wildly. I read articles that use the word ‘messianic’ to describe his campaign, and no one is screaming “Blasphemy!”

To compare the two Democrat candidates, Clinton, without question, has better policy—especially in the areas of foreign affairs, economics, and the military. While I may disagree with her, it is mostly of the sort where reasonable minds can disagree based on different policy preferences and values. Obama, on the other hand, has made many statements that are simply wrong in all of those areas. People seem to know this, but they love him anyway. I don’t get it.

The other day, I spoke to an old acquaintance of mine who happens to be a Democrat supporting Obama. I asked him why. He said it was because Obama was against the war. After conceding that I was not terribly happy about the way the war has been handled either, I pointed out that the fact of the matter is that we did go to war and we are in Iraq. I asked him what he thought we should do about it now. He acknowledged that he does not believe Obama can pull the troops out right away as the region would go to hell. He even believes that the eighteen month withdrawal would be a bad idea. Nonetheless, he likes that Obama is saying it.

I then asked him about some of Obama’s other policy statements: his insane belief that free trade is bad, his willingness to treat publicly with our enemies, and his desire to impose additional regulations on securities trading. All of this was acknowledged to be quite terrible and possibly unfeasible. I was flummoxed. So I asked him how, knowing all this, could he still support Obama, when Clinton is at least calculating and self interested enough not to screw up the country too badly by making such mistakes. He shrugged, and said “Change. I know it probably doesn’t mean anything, but I’m just so sick of calculating and self interested politicians. I guess I don’t really care all that much about policy. I just like hearing ‘change,’ and I really want to believe it’s possible.”

People will believe anything they want to believe enough or fear to believe enough. I had almost forgotten that basic truism. I am terrified of where it may take us though. Politicians do tend to respond to what people want. Thus, it seems that people like us and Christopher Hitchens, people who care about policy and substance, are now in the minority. The majority really does just want to hear empty platitudes that make them feel good. They don’t care whether or not they are true or even possible. They just want to believe they are.

And that is how populists come to power. After their downfall, when it becomes abundantly clear that things didn’t work out just because people believed they would—even when those beliefs are enforced at the point of a gun-- they are called authoritarians or dictators. We spend a great deal of time learning that these people are evil. We don’t seem to do as well in learning how they come to power in the first place.

I know I've seen some "artwork" like this before . . .

Here are two other world leaders known for bringing "hope and change":