You have to respect Bill Kristol. Yes, you can disparage his politics--his imperialist hawkishness that got us into this bloody, sand-caked fiasco, or any of the ridiculous op/eds you find in his Weekly Standard. But on May 3, at the National Press Club, he did what few conservatives would do in this somber age of Congressional minorities and 28% presidential approval ratings: he swallowed his pride and attended an event titled, comically, the Failure of Conservatism Conference. And at the luncheon of the Conference, hosted by the Campaign for America’s Future, not only did he share the same room with a group of people who probably wanted his head on a platter instead of the veggie pasta, but he was forced to defend his much-maligned movement in a debate with The American Prospect’s Robert Kuttner. The topic at hand? The equally cruel and funny inquiry “Can Conservatives Be Trusted to Govern?”

To be fair, this was no worse than some of the panel titles I saw while undercover blogging at CPAC (for example, “The Left’s Continued War on the American Soldier”), and Kristol’s amiability promoted a certain tongue-in-cheek, sport-like quality in the contest that prevented it from ever getting ugly. Plus, the subtext to the harsh title was clear: in the midst of the Reagan nostalgia that Bush’s mess of a presidency has inspired and that is currently clouding the minds and words of the Right’s 2008 nominees, it is in the Left’s best interest to cut off the problem at its stem instead of at its goofy, vacant, Texan head. At Kuttner’s podium was a sign that read “Pro,” and at Kristol’s one that marked him, in blood red, “CON.” The stage was set. The bell was rung.

Round 1

Kuttner comes out swinging, characterizing the last six years as a laboratory for elected conservatives to try every idea they ever had, in the absence of a president who would remotely challenge them. What manifested, he notes, was not principled libertarianism or a return to tradition, but a movement based on sheer, unadulterated opportunism. The laziness, corruption, and greed was not a temporary ailment but at the heart of the Right’s cause.

Kristol pursues an exclusively economic counterattack, rhetorically pondering if we really want to return to the fiscal state we were in before 1980 and Reaganomics, then citing the positive influence of such policies on developing nations. He hits a sensitive spot by pointing out that none of the Left is campaigning on their party’s pre-1996 position on welfare. He wipes his brow.

Round 2

Kuttner notes Kristol’s conspicuous failure to mention Bush or Iraq once in his opening statement, and asserts that the family unit that Kristol’s conservatives are so desperate to attack has been hurt more by the Right’s rich-favoring tax cuts than by any sort of cultural deterioration. Kuttner continues to focus his blows on the fiscal cronyism of the Right, attributing conservatives’ enduring ability to win elections to the inevitable translation of wealth into power.

Kristol bobs and weaves, defending himself by proclaiming that he would gladly accept Clinton-era Reubenomics as a suitable alternative to Reaganomics (being as it is in his mind influenced by conservative policy), and points to Giuliani’s success in making New York “liveable.” On Iraq, he unashamedly insists that the next president will have a similar foreign policy to Bush’s, but with a different “style.”

Round 3

Kristol suddenly breaks ranks with the conservatives and launches a strictly Neocon attack—he embraces a rightist welfare (read: nanny) state, heralds Bush’s Medicare bill and tax cuts, and boldly counters criticism of military build-up by lamenting that we didn't bolster defense spending more before 9/11 and Iraq. When pressed on the war, Kristol, unexpectedly fatigued after his offensive, graciously yields that Bush’s certainly hasn’t been the most competent presidential administration, to roaring applause.

Kuttner sticks to his reliable jab, insisting that corruption and conservatism go hand-in-hand, using as evidence the K Street Project and the Right’s massive investment in think tanks. Kristol goes into block mode, attributing the growth of said think tanks to the enlistment of conservative political science professors who can’t get tenure on college campuses. Kuttner tries new moves as he unflinchingly credits the Left’s 2006 election success to the pocketbook problems of average Americans, instead of Iraq. Kristol attempts one last hook by disparaging the Left’s unity, noting that liberalism seems to be merely comprised of grievances against conservatives, rather than a force in its own right.

Post-Match Analysis

Against all odds, and despite definitely lacking the home-team advantage, Kristol was able to at least hold his own against Kuttner. He looked calm and comfortable for almost the whole debate, but when he went for economics, it allowed Kuttner to focus on the money-grubbing disenfranchisement of the poor that he claimed was at the heart of conservatism. Both men more or less played by the rules in that they avoided the opportunity to make Bush the centerpiece of an argument about conservatism in general, but when they did mention his name, a weird kind of consensus was reached. Though these days one would expect any self-respecting conservative to denounce Bush as a tainted, wrong-headed deviation from the base movement, Kristol actually agreed with Kuttner (quite happily) that future conservative presidents will have the same goals and ideas as George W. Bush. He seemed to think this was a good thing. I’m not so sure, but it certainly raises a more appropriate but no less pitiless topic for a debate: “George Bush: Totally Misguided, or Just Disastrously Incompetent?”

Last week, Campus Progress and the Center for American Progress hosted another installation of the series “Conversations with Daschle,” featuring a dialogue between former Senator Tom Daschle, and former Governor of New Jersey and EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, held at the Georgetown University GPPI Student Lounge.

In addition to free pizza and drinks, guests were treated to a serious and comprehensive discussion on environmental policy. Although Whitman and Daschle are from opposite sides of the aisle, both agreed that climate change should no longer be treated as a politicized idea with disputed science, but as an objective reality.

While Senator Daschle was optimistic about the potential legislative efforts in Congress to ease human impact on climate change, Ms. Whitman was similarly pleased but admitted that she was cautious about some of the more “bold” proposals that have recently been made. Ms. Whitman maintained a strong support for a cap-and-trade system as a realistic solution, citing its success with respect to non-greenhouse gases and reiterating the need for businesses to have positive incentives in order to enact real progress. Approaches based solely on broad regulation, such as caps on carbon output, go too far and are not likely to be adopted, Ms. Whitman offered.

Both agreed that the legislative freedom provided in state governments have allowed states to serve as apt laboratories for the possible directions for environmental policy, with Governor Schwarzenegger’s California being the most obvious example. Both also fielded questions from the audience, covering topics ranging from what college students can do to make their campus green, to how to make being environmentally conscious "sexy." 

This was the seventh in the series of “Conversations with Daschle,” which features the former Senate Majority Leader casually discussing a certain subject with a different prominent politician or D.C. personality.

I wanted to revive the debate concerning Jon Stewart and the McCain interview, both because the last post ironically devolved into the very kind of uncivil bickering I originally held Stewart accountable for ("I've read more books than you" instead of "I know the troops better"), and because of this brilliant Bill Moyers interview with Stewart, in which he mentions and kind of defends kind of doesn't how he acted with McCain.

Here' my take: It's definitely a great interview, and Stewart's eloquence and intelligence only makes me love him more, but you
notice that he ultimately compares the McCain interview to the kind of counterproductive "dialogue" that Congress and the White House are having over the spending bill. Also, his assertion that all he was
trying to do was simply contemplate "is this really the trading of
talking points we're going to have over Iraq?" is just a rouse,
because in imitating that debate you by default imitate a side on the talking points battle. He may try to convince us that that was the
rhetorical meta-subtext of the interview, but what we end up seeing is Stewart and McCain trade off talking points. People seem to love the interview because they feel like they haven't seen someone cut through the war support bullshit like Stewart does, but to me he's offering the same counterpoint that you'd find in a debate about the war between Carville and Novak on CNN....except it's coming from Jon Stewart. This is the problem with only getting your news from the
Daily Show--you end up losing scope of where Jon is innovative and
intelligent and unique in his perspective... and the rare moment where he's just like everyone else on TV. Maybe, ironically, that's why his interview has been so apparently newsworthy.

Also, he can't simultaneously try to convince me that he's not a
social critic and then end the interview with Moyers by saying that he
believes his program offers a view of current events, in "a certain
context." Placing anything relevant to today's society or political
landscape in a certain context, especially when framed with humor (the punchline of which always has a point), IS the DEFINITION of
social/political criticism. That said, I understand the game he's
playing by not defining himself that way. But come on, if you go on
"Crossfire" and tell Begala and Carlson that they're "hurting
America," you're definitely some sort of socio-political critic.

Don't get me wrong, i love jon stewart and this interview only
reinforces that love. But i think he's a populist preacher posing as a
jester--a disguise that's been most effective for him. And when he
ditches that to pose as a pundit, the disguise wears a little too
thin.

Okay, I know that Jon Stewart has always aptly been able to use the fact that his is a comedy show to excuse the program from any sort of standards for legitimate political discourse...but at this point, we all know that we turn to "The Daily Show" for some of the most insightful commentary on current events available on TV. Not only does the comedy often illuminate the truth behind the story that the Administration or the media is spinning, but the interviews are often ten times more intelligent and interesting and just plain civil than the shouting matches between exasperated pundits that you find on other shows. Stewart is not afraid to ask tough questions of people he clearly disagrees with, but he usually gets there patiently, with a logical train of thought, and certainly never pounces on his guest. If you're in Jon's ideological boat, you usually end up at least understanding where the other guy is coming from, but respectfully disagreeing.

Forgive me, but I hold Stewart to these standards. Which is why Jon's interview with John McCain really disappointed me.

Make no mistake, I'm no McCain fan, nor apologist. As for Jon Stewart, I'd probably have his child, if biologically possible. But even a blindly dedicated fan could see that this interview is a bit warped. For one, it's hardly an interview. McCain barely gets a word in edge-wise. Stewart constantly interrupts him, talking over him so that he can articulate his point first, and win the applause of all his like-minded fans in the audience. The worst part is when they resort to a middle school bicker-fest over what the troops think about the war ("my friends in the army say this"..."oh yeah, well MY friends in the army say THIS"). Stewart's not conducting an interview, he's making a series of blunt, platitudinal points in the cloak of questions, which is PRECISELY the kind of bullying and anti-intellectual grilling for which Stewart and Colbert have prodded Bill O'Reilly. This isn't why I watch the Daily Show--to see Jon Stewart verbally suffocate the people he disagrees with, as his faithful followers cheer gleefully.

Because McCain has historically been a friend of the Daily Show, appearing numerous times and always respected by Stewart, it's safe to say that McCain's continued, unapologetic support of the War has left Jon less patient with him, and endowed with a certain amount of anger that came out all at once on Tuesday night. Stewart's moral indignation has always been at the heart and soul of the humor behind "The Daily Show," but sometimes it gets the best of him, and he ends up looking just plain self-righteous. The Crossfire stunt was one of these times, but I didn't care, because of the sheer balls that it took to do what Stewart did. But I fear that, at least for this interview with McCain, Jon Stewart resorted to the kind of counter-productive discourse for which he chided Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.

It was 10 in the morning on my fourth day cavorting amongst conservatives at the Omni Shoreham. I was tired, sick, hung over, and the preposterousness of things witnessed had me starting to question my mission. Thankfully, DH had once again provided free food, including much-needed coffee, and though my legs felt like they each weighed 200 pounds, I opened up my notebook and soon thereafter, my eyes.

There was a panel before the debate, but it's not really worth mentioning, because it featured Gib Armstrong talking about the left hating freedom and a few college-age Horowitz minions kissing his ass, bitching about college bureaucracy (not actual cases of political bullying), and plugging their national on-campus right-wing organization. Some guy's cell phone went off (he actually answered it), and I think I saw a couple playing Sudoku. I felt more hungover by the end of the panel.

When the debate began, I counted 43 people in the room. Horowitz once again reiterated his desire for this to be a non- or bi-partisan issue, that all that matters is what abuse goes down in the classroom. It's true--if Horowitz had found a few lefty or non-political students whose feelings had been abused by conservative professors, I would have taken him more seriously. If he had found some professors who could speak to the bullying tactics that some of the colleagues use in the classroom and in intradepartment politics, I would have taken him more seriously.

Instead, the only professor present was his opponent in the debate, Cary Nelson, who obviously also found it very hard to take Horowitz's cause seriously. His opening argument had a sardonic, playful tone that suggested he thought he probably had better things to do, but it came off much more engaging that Horowitz's opening rant about affirmative action, or something.

Judging from the blogs from last year's Students for Academic Freedom Conference, I wasn't expecting much, meaning many students nor much substance. But this year the organizers were smart--the opening reception was not only very shrewdly held at the end of CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference, also live blogged for Campus Progress), but featured that hunky piece of man Rick Santorum, as well as free food and FREE ALCOHOL. That's right, free alcohol at an event about an issue that centers on college kids. If you're a poor young Republican lamenting the end of CPAC and wondering where to pre-game for your evening at these Adam's Morgan bars you keep hearing about, do you have any other option?? Sure there were hardly any name tags for pre-registered participants, but I'll be damned if the line for on-site registration wasn't wrapped around the hallway, with most getting a good look at the cheese, crackers, chicken, pasta, Budweiser, and Santorum awaiting them.
 
For those of you who aren't familiar with David Horowitz and the Students for Academic Freedom, it is a movement to temper the perceived leftist professors' monopoly on the academy by introducing an Academic Bill of Rights that would legally protect a student from being the subject of political abuse by his professor. Teachers naturally oppose it because they don't want to be the subject of political abuse by David Horowitz. But seriously, while Horowitz claims that his is a non-partisan effort merely to protect students against professors acting terribly unprofessionally, the activities of the Students for Academic Freedom certainly seem to serve more as a forum to voice wider complaints about what they see as the leftist or even socialist slant of the actual content of these professors' courses. There is a fear, thereby, that Horowitz's effort could amount to the modern-day McCarthyist witchhunt of leftist teachers. I'm here to tell you guys, you don't have much to worry about. 

What makes it even harder to believe that Horowitz's is a "non-partisan" endeavor is how freely he lumps it together with the rest of his neocon politics. For example, his "Discover the Networks" campaign aims to track the funding for left-wing organizations, which he justifies by claiming that consciously or not, the left is aiding terrorists. Then there's the fact that his reception (at the end of the CONSERVATIVE Political Action Conference) featured absolutely no talk whatsoever of the issues that Students for Academic Freedom concerns itself with. Instead, Horowitz used the captive audience to plug his Terrorism Awareness Project, whose cause du jour is to coordinate multiple screenings of some movie about radical Islam's war with the West on the 4th Anniversary of "the liberation of Baghdad." If that's not a politically loaded term, I don't know what is. Horowitz then treated the audience to a flash video, which I swear is not intentionally a self-parody but highly recommend it for a chuckle...which is what it illicited from some (fellow conservatives!) in the room: Link
 

A few concluding observations about the conservative as a social and political animal. First, the evidence.  

In what was probably a brilliant leftist prank, there was a hotel-wide fire alarm during the Ronald Reagan banquet, the much-anticipated climax of CPAC. As everyone milled around outside, a group of young conservatives started a collective sing-along to "(Bye Bye) Miss American Pie," delivered until they got past the first verse and the chorus and forgot the words. Cool, guys. I'm glad you have the pop culture sensibility of baby boomers. At least my 59 year-old father knows some of the words. Then the fire department showed up and everyone cheered loudly (note: there was no fire). 

I used the mass confusion to sneak us into the Banquet (see previous blog post for the verbal detritus that was spewed there). Afterwards, though I was already feeling the stolen chardonnay, I was determined to infiltrate the young conservative social scene. I ended up bumming a cigarette off two dudes from Kentucky (I don't smoke, but being from Virginia, tobacco and both our states' economic dependence on it provided a convenient topic of conversation). These guys talked about state politics and the strategy of their career trajectories with the zeal and careful calculation of fanatics rattling off inane baseball stats--I gotta work on this campaign to get that job with this guy's cabinet, "If Fletcher wins in '07, McConnell will look bad for '08," etc. There was zero talk about actual political issues, just the politics of career advancement IN politics. They were expertly acquainted with everyone who was anyone in the college conservative political hierarchy scene--we winked at the cute chair from Tennessee (thoughts on conservative girls coming soon). 

I followed them up to a room party thrown by the rep from Minnesota (my heart goes out to that girl). It was too small for me not to be snickered at as "random guy," and I quickly realized I didn't have the heart or endurance for this endeavor. With the bad music and the collective stick up everyone's butt, it's no wonder Stephen Glass made up that story about hanging out with drunk Republicans. I drew a (not so) healthy amount of their rum into my Dixie cup, which was my way of telling myself I hadn't totally admitted defeat, and made haste to the lobby.

On the way I had a funny experience with a friendly fellow Conference attendee, as we slowly revealed to each other that we were both leftist social imposters. He told me about how a girl at the party asked him where he worked and he told her "the Democratic Caucus." What? she asked, not hearing him over the shitty R&B playing. "The Caucus!" he tactfully abbreviated. She misheard him again and slapped him. Just kidding- anti-feminist conservative girls are way harder to offend with inappropriate jocular references to your penis.

I had serious moral quandries about writing this blog post, because I think that Ann Coulter is the last person who deserves more attention from anyone in the media, regardless of how insignificant. But now I've come to accept Ann for what she is--the Right's best comedian. She's not a pundit, she's not a policy person...she's just an entertainer. Forget the "1/2 Hour News Hour"; she is the conservatives' conduit of comedy. Unfortunately her humor is the schtickiest there is. Un-P.C.-ness is her one trick pony, which is why liberals don't find her funny...and in turn why she is a smashing success with begrieved conservatives.

At her speech today, which had less substance than cotton candy, she heralded Mitt Romney as the best Republican presidential candidate, because Giuliani and McCain are too liberal. Then she criticized the RNC for denouncing NYU and U. Michigan's "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" game. During the Q&A, after some guy said that "Godless" was second only to the Bible as the best book he'd ever read, she really let loose the zingers:

"College Republicans are like conservatives in North Korea."

On how to obliterate apathy on a college campus: "Start a Joe McCarthy Club."

On girls involved in conservative campus activism: "Unlike in the liberal movements, you might actually meet a nice heterosexual boy."

"I was going to say something about John Edwards, but I heard that if you use the word 'faggot' you end up in rehab." (I would find this funny, if I was homophobic). 

"Democrats don't like blacks, yet blacks keep voting for them!...Our blacks are more impressive than their blacks" (Are we fighting over toys here?).

"Why aren't all gays conservative? We're anti-tax and anti-crime. Gays make tons of money and are victims of crimes!"



That's all I got. Thank you, you've been a great audience, don't forget to tip your waitress.

Well, CPAC managed to gather all four of the black people at this Conference and put them on stage together, for "Conservative Solutions for Urban America."

All the usual gripes and outrage of the more conservative contingency of the black middle class were heard--we can't blame problems on the color of our skin, we must live now and forget the history of oppression, BET is ruining our youth, etc. "Antebellum rednecks have got nothing on MTV and BET, the minstrel show that is pumped into our children's brains daily," said the Congress for Racial Equality's Niger Innis. 

Some of these complaints represent common ground with people on the left--for instance, when Campus Progress hosted a showing of "Beyond Beats and Rhymes" in Los Angeles not three weeks ago, the panel including "conscious" rapper Talib Kweli spent much time ridiculing BET's founder Bob Johnson, who Innis maligned by name at this CPAC panel. In fact, Innis even critiqued Fox News for focusing their (albeit negative) coverage on figures like P. Diddy, and the media in general for presenting a warped and narrow vision of black people, as indication of their totally skewed priorities. "We care more about Anna Nicole Smith and what Britney is shaving or not wearing than a war being fought by our young people." I certainly couldn't argue with that.

When they did choose to focus on the past is where they lost me. Mychal Massie, of the National Center for Public Policy: "Slavery is over." Sure. "The civil rights struggle is over." Okay, maybe. Then, "we went from Martin Luther King to Superfly." Weird...what happened to the Black Panthers? Apparently they were part of a "militant movement that glorified a motherland that never existed" and ridiculed Martin Luther King. Not surprisingly, there was no mention of how King did get more aggressive and spoke out against the Vietnam War at the end of his life. "We went from Duke Ellington to Snoop Dogg," and, most interestingly, "we went from Shirley Chisolm to Barack Obama." Did I miss something? I guess Obama is a lamentable candidate because his father is from Africa, which doesn't exist.

“Plato said something like what I’m about to say….that if he wanted to govern a nation, and he had the option to use politics or art, he would choose art. While politics can govern the laws of men, art dictates their minds and their hearts, how they think and how they work.”

No less than Plato provided the dominant philosophy of CPAC’s panel on Hollywood, “The Power of the Box Office: Getting the Pro-Life Message to the Masses.” With this title and the fact that two of the scheduled speakers were reality star Tarek from “The Apprentice” and Miss America 2001, I did not expect much. Thankfully, Tarek and the beauty queen did not show up, and so the audience was treated to a substantive discussion between a set of conservative entrepreneurs, producers, and filmmakers. The prevailing message: not all is lost in Hollywood for conservatives.

While the talking heads on Fox News might have you believe that Hollywood, with its godless tales of homosexual cowboys and alarmist propaganda about global warming, is a lost battle in the culture war, these execs preached a message of hope. Joe Giganti, who was introduced as having a “secular” radio and TV background and who had worked on “Passion of the Christ,” informed the crowd that these days, “New Media” and/or “Alternate Media” is, in fact, Conservative Media. And he’s sort of right—while progressives think of grassroots media on the internet as something inherently theirs, Giganti pointed to talk radio as proof that “the Revolution has taken place!” In the middle is Hollywood, where what Giganti and other conservative or non-secular filmmakers aim to promote is truly alternative; they see themselves as launching a veritable insurgency in Tinseltown. Theirs is a different kind of culture war—not a war between cultures but a war with cultural items as weapons. “The battle of ideas,” as one of them put it, “…and we have the benefit of the Truth!” Spoken like a true revolutionary.

I pushed open the doors to the tabling area at America's biggest conservative conference. Behold, a veritable cave of wonders.

Every organization that could remotely appeal to anyone on the right side of the political spectrum was there, in full force, and with candy. 



All the usual suspects were there--the NRA, the anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum, and a variety of right wing radio hosts. Naturally, there was a worship of all things Reagan--old campaign buttons, posters, dolls....I snagged a 2007 calendar of Reagan in provacative diplomatic poses with prominent world leaders. There was a NASCAR car, and even the Truckers' Association. 



Many tables served to promote books, such as "The Truth about Muhammad," "The un-P.C. Guide to Science," and "Liberal Lies and Conservative Comebacks" (which sounds like a desperate right -winger's book of Yo Mama jokes). The makeshift book store held nothing surprising, with the occasional exception (i.e. "The American Myth of Religious Freedom"), and interesting juxtaposition ("Terror in the Skies" next to Ted Nugent's "Kill It and Grill It").


Campus Progress' rivals were in full force. There was the Luce Institute, whose Horowitzian hate for liberal professors' "soapbox performances" fuels its effort to counter universities' shameful waste of YOUR tuition money on leftists speakers by hosting patriotic conservative ones. The Leadership Institute ("for conservatives who want to win!") gave me a pamphlet in which they anxiously encourage me to "Conduct Exciting Events!" next to a picture of a student in a giant chicken costume, complete with a sign that reads "Chirac, Le Chicken." This is meaningful student activism. They are hosting a blogging workshop, and, seemingly stuck in the earlier part of the decade, they plug it with "Learn how to start a blog and get people to read it!"

I focused my perusal on items and tables that revealed the unexpected fissures in the Conservative movement. Essential reading was the widely dispersed pamphlet "He's No Ronald Reagan: Why Conservatives Should Not Vote for John McCain," as well as several fellow attendees with "No Rudy McRomney" stickers. This isn't exactly surprising; McCain publicly declined to attend the conference, and perceived centrists like he and Guliani do not have the ground support here that Sam Brownback ("Support a true conservative") and even Jim Gilmore have. Similarly, it is a testament to the disunity of the Right that here at their biggest annual event, they chose as opening speaker one Dick Cheney--a figure most conservatives would place on the margins of their movement.

Last night, Tuesday February 27, Campus Progress and HBO hosted an advanced screening of "Life Support," a new HBO film about the daily struggle of a woman who has the HIV/AIDS virus. The film stars Queen Latifah and Gloria Reuben, and the screening drew an engaged crowd of over 225 to Washington's E Street Cinema.

The audience was treated to introductory remarks by Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), and a compelling panel discussion featuring Ms. Waters, Nelson George, the director of the film, actress Gloria Reuben (also of "ER" fame), and William Brawner, an AIDS activist and educator.

The panel praised the film for its humanistic treatment of people who live with the virus as one of many problems they deal with everyday. It was truly refreshing to see a film that presented an African-American woman who was a human being first, one with strengths and flaws like anyone else, whose victimhood was almost besides the point. Unlike dry, fact-based documentaries and overambitious non-fiction films that unintentionally give the virus a more detached treatment in their attempt to give a comprehensive education about it, "Life Support" is a warm-hearted testament to how one woman gets by.

The audience reflected these sentiments in the Q&A session afterwards, and each panelist offered his or her own insight into the AIDS crisis. Nelson George filled out the picture of the woman in the film with anecdotes about his own sister, who was the basis for Latifah's character. Maxine Waters articulated what legislative battles must be waged to get AIDS support centers more funding, and contemplated the potentially helpful role of the church in educating people about the virus. William Brawley discussed how AIDS issues intersect and relate to other issues in the African-American community.

The night was a resounding success, and Campus Progress was lucky to work with HBO in showing their  inspiring film to an enthusiastic audience. Thanks to everyone who made this evening happen!