http://www.bilerico.com/2008/07/speaking_youth_to_power.php

One thing that can be said about the current generation of young gays is that they are a smart and ambitious lot. Eugene Resnick, an openly gay candidate for National Membership Director of the College Democrats, definitely fits that mold. He's focused, savvy and "cliched as it sounds" committed to making a difference.

I had the chance to ask Eugene some questions about being openly gay, youth political involvement and why being a "gay Russian Jew from Brooklyn" can be an asset.

MC: There is more than a little hand-wringing from some older people over what they see as a lack of political involvement from younger people. You are clearly not living up to that image.

ER: I hope that I can make a difference in our society as cliché as that sounds. I want to raise the voice of those who have no voice. I understand what its like to be the one that's counted out. I see many young people who are very engaged and very much care about the society we live in and the changes we need enacted. Our generation understands the complexities ahead and the deep institutional problems that this country has faced.

For us, race, gender and sexuality don't really matter anymore as a factor in judgment of one's character. We are for the most part the first generation that transcends such superficial human traits and sees everyone on the same playing field. I hope to remain active, continue on by earning a higher education in law and public policy, and eventually serve the public by running for office. In the meantime, I hope to do whatever I can to engage my fellow young people in the political process so that they can be active members of our thriving democracy.

What Makes Eugene Run?

MC: Is that why you want to be National Membership Director for the College Democrats?

ER: I am running because I believe I have the foresight, experience, and passion needed to be successful in this position. The National Membership Director position requires an individual with an ability to build coalitions between groups and establish friendships and contacts with people that are not usual coalition partners.

With an election year this year that has so much Democratic enthusiasm for our candidate, Barack Obama, there is so much potential for massive growth in terms of membership in College Democrats organizations throughout the country. We can expand into all 50 states, forming local and state chapters at schools that have never had a College Democrats organization. There are many students across the country who feel ostracized for being a Democrat especially in more conservative regions, and this must end.

At a time with so much enthusiasm for change, there is much potential to be tapped into in terms of youth activism and involvement in politics that has not been seen since the 1960s. The role of the National Membership Director is to spearhead new chapters, get more students involved in College Democrats, and outreach to individuals of all backgrounds to ensure the Democratic Party grows and further diversifies. I believe I can help make that happen.

MC: What are some of the skills and experiences that make you qualified for that role?

ER: I served as Minority and Women's Affairs Coordinator at the University Democrats at the University of Virginia reaching out to various Black, Latino, Asian, LGBT and Women's groups on campus to get them more politically involved and have a voice within the Democratic Party. I formed the first ever statewide College Democrats organization in Virginia bringing together students from across the state to bring to the forefront the voice of college students in the Commonwealth.

My tenure as President of the statewide organization resulted in the recent merger with the Virginia Young Democrats forming a massive young Democratic organization in Virginia poised to register large amounts of new young voters, have their voices heard by getting them to the polls, but mostly importantly have young people engaged in the American political discourse. I currently am interning in Washington, DC with the National Stonewall Democrats specifically working on field operations across the country, helping chapters build membership and outreach along with helping them target certain races this election cycle.

Being Gay Not What it Used to Be

MC: Has been openly gay hurt or helped you in taking on leadership roles with the College Democrats?

ER: Being openly gay has helped me in taking on leadership roles with the College Democrats. My first election was when I ran for Minority and Women's Affairs Coordinator at the University Democrats at the University of Virginia. I ran on the platform of not only being a fresh face, but also by taking ownership of my multiple minority identity. I was the "gay Russian Jew from Brooklyn" running in a race in a majority white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant, institution in the South.

One might think I was tokenized into the minority leadership role, but I stood up as a voice for the LGBT community at the University on the Board of Directors. Now I have risen up the ladder into leadership statewide. I have a large network of friends and colleagues with whom I am politically and academically involved who serve as my support system. I have never felt hindered being openly gay and that is a reflection of how our generation is so vastly different from any other in American history.

MC: What do you say to other young people to help them realize their political power?

ER: Facebook is a powerful tool and it has proven to be an extremely effective way of mobilizing people to become involved in a cause. I tell other young people I meet who may be cynical or wary of politics if at all interested is that that they have a stake in society. Young people today are vastly different from generations before and there are a multitude of problems that this country is facing today that need to be fixed and we are the generation to make it happen. We are over the race divisions of the 50s and 60s and the gay baiting of the 80s and 90s. We grew up with gay Student Body Presidents, blacks and whites, Latinos and Asians sitting at the same table, and females occupying a majority of the education system. We are Generation Y.

I let people know that there must be an issue that affects them whether its outrageous gas prices, denial of their civil rights as gay or black or Latino or an immigrant, predatory student loans that haunt students for years to come, high college costs, difficulty getting health insurance as a young independent person, or having their friends or family member die for a war that was poorly executed and under false pretenses. I tell them that they have a stake in this election and in the future with all these issues that impact them one way or another.

Tomorrow, Saturday, January 19, 2008 will be a big day in the history of the United States and in the history of my life. The same day will see my departure to Europe as I venture off to Scandinavia and Northern Europe for a semester in Copenhagen, Denmark among other places. It will also see the Nevada Democratic Caucus take place. Therefore I want to take this opportunity to reflect on my trip to New Orleans, Louisiana and the Gulf Coast region from the preceding 2 weeks and how I will connect it to tomorrow's election.

2008 began with a trip with 14 other University of Virginia students to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region with Alternative Spring Break. Our aim in driving down there on a daunting 18-hour drive was to better ever so slightly at least one person's life or a family's by helping in constructing a home, providing comfort, and showing our love and concern for the thousands in the region who were ravaged by Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. We embarked on the journey two and a half years after Katrina struck expecting at least a substantial amount of the recovery and reconstruction effort to have already taken place. We could not have witnessed anything farther from the contrary.

New Orleans, Louisiana was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. The racial divide in the city which stretches back to the days of slavery and plantation life seem to have been frozen in time since the 19th century. After such a catastrophic natural disaster as Katrina one would presume to see unity within the city of New Orleans across racial lines as what I witnessed in post-9/11 New York City. Unfortunately, this was not the case. I witnessed the flying of Confederate flags flying proudly in the mostly white suburb of St. Bernard. I saw the liveliness and economic activity of Bourbon Street and the French Quarter where mostly white tourists and New Orleanians held their beer bottles and displayed their intoxication on the streets as they celebrated the football game between the LSU Tigers and Ohio State Buckeyes. Yet about a 10 minute drive down over the bridge into the Ninth Ward there stands total decimation. The people suffering in this part of town and many others could care less about the football game. They care about getting their homes either reconstructed, getting out of their trailer and moving into decent living conditions, or obtaining any sort of housing as they lay homeless on the streets, under overpasses or under bridges. Homelessness soared after the storm and remains very high to this day. We witnessed the large makeshift homeless camps with hundreds of tents settled in little communities under overpasses. This lays just blocks away from the economic revival of downtown New Orleans creating an image of restoration and recovering, and turning a blind eye on so many who are being ignored by the local, state and federal government. I will never forget the graffiti on the outside wall of a building near a bridge stating “Wealth in the face of poverty is an affront to our dignity.” It cannot be said any more eloquently. I spoke to a man who served as a firefighter in the New Orleans Fire Deparment for many years who claimed “it is just the culture down here,” referring to the racial divide. It’s a shame.

Touring the Ninth Ward was gut-wrenching. The breaks in the levees that act as the only barrier between the raging waters and the neighborhood were clearly visible as barely a house stands in the entire site which stood at the forefront of the floods as the levees broke. It has been two and a half years and this entire neighborhood that housed hundreds of families doesn’t even have a trace of rebuilding. The scene looked like what I would imagine the aftermath of a nuclear explosion to look like. All that was left were phone line beams and wet mud that stretched for acres. A white man in a pickup truck rolls on by in this nearly entirely black neighborhood, stops by us, and states  something to the effect of “Y’all don’t stay here at night. This neighborhood has a lot of murders.”  The sense of anger, hopelessness, and utter despair in so many parts of the city could not be any more evident.

On our last day of the journey, we ventured into Biloxi, Mississippi which had a completely different situation. Although also totally decimated by the storm as the eye of Katrina passed over this specific region, it looked as though more than half of the city was recovered. We would find out throughout that day that the reason for the rapid recovery in this area was the economic incentive presented to the large number of casinos that existed in Biloxi and therefore created a necessity to rebuild to continue the flow of tourists to these casinos. These casinos poured in millions of dollars into the recovery effort as a way to quickly rebuild the neighborhoods around them for fear of turning tourists away and consequently losing business. Such an economic incentive did not and to this day does not exist in low income residential areas of New Orleans such as the Ninth Ward. There is no economic incentive to rebuild those areas. It is a shame that the only reason for improving people’s lives is to offset financial loss. We heard countless tearful stories from residents of the city who lost family members and their homes in the storm. They explained how their insurance companies offered absolutely nothing to them after the storm in reparative aid. Absolutely nothing. Insurance companies whether they be home insurance or health insurance have constantly turned a blind eye to Americans and nobody seems to do anything about it. When people pay thousands of dollars to have insurance and then when they actually need it, to be denied simple funds for recovery is immoral, unjust and un-American.  

What I witnessed in the approximately two weeks of my stay there frustrated, upset, and angered me. Yet it also motivated me to action. On our journey, we as a group learned that the most important component of being a citizen, a civil servant, and a human being is awareness. Being aware of the world around you, the struggles and inequalities that affect other people are critical to building a better society and a better future for subsequent generations.

This is what brings me to the Nevada Caucus held tomorrow. Many of my friends and family by now know I personally support Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Therefore, I would like to take this moment to connect what I observed and experienced in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast with this fight for the Democratic nomination and the general election of 2008. Nevadans will come to their respective caucus sites tomorrow and stand for the candidate of their choice. For me, the choice here is clear and simple. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the lack of concern and aid that the region saw thereafter was the result of the lack of government accountability. Despite what others may say to the contrary, I still believe the Bush administration did not care about the people of the Ninth Ward not only for racial and socioeconomic reasons but also for political ones. Many of the areas devastated and left with no recovery were indeed also white middle class which brings up the issue of accountability. The administration washed its hands of the problem and left it to the state government in Louisiana and Mississippi to take care of the recovery effort. The Governor of Louisiana at the time, Democrat Kathleen Blanco was widely criticized for not doing a great job yet much was not in her control as the Feds were depriving the area with much needed funds. Nevermind the incompetence of FEMA Director Michael Brown who had no experience in disaster relief management whatsoever but was instead one of Bush’s friends from Texas. Probably due to a combination of stress, personal embarassment and disappointment, Kathleen Blanco decided not to run for reelection and was replaced by a Republican in November 2007’s gubernatorial election. Restoring government accountability and trust in the government is crucial in restoring America’s greatness. Not only are we great because of our novel principles of democracy and freedom, but our greatness goes back to Jeffersonian principles of the contract between government and the people. This contract was completely ripped apart and burned during the years of George Bush.

We need a leader who will bring government accountability back. A leader who has a plan on day 1 to restore America’s standing in the world and at home. We need a leader who will bring aid to New Orleans, a leader who cares to repair racial inequality, along with so much other inequalities that plague this country due to socioeconomics, gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. We need a leader who has the experience and the passion for change. We need a leader who has the willpower to fight for progressive values of equality, equal opportunity, fairness, and social justice. We need a fighter. We need a leader who will protect us from those who aim to harm us at home and abroad. We need a leader who will get us out of Iraq, restore our credibility with ourselves and other nations. We need a leader who will put the bureacracy in check and manage it. We need a leader who understands the intricacies of the bureaucracy through which only then change will happen. We need a leader who will fight for all Americans - Women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Children, College Students, the LGBT community, Veterans, the Working Class, the Middle Class, and unions. These groups of people have all proved to be invisible to the Bush administration. Not anymore. Hillary Clinton is the person to get the job done and bring a better future for all of us. I hope Nevadans, South Carolinians and the rest of Democratic voters make the right choice in their respective primary.

Last night, at a theater in Washington DC, I saw Michael Moore's "Sicko". I left the theater with a sense of enthusiasm and passion for an issue that was dear to my heart but never was something I would write about. But now, this has changed.

It was an outrage to see the stories of these innocent people suffering under a system that doesn't want to care for people. Of course I knew that all these things were occurring but when they are placed with true-life stories it really struck a chord with me.

How is it that we, the United States of America, with all our glory and grandeur, all the hype about the land of the free and the home of the brave, all the stories of opportunity, equality, and justice under the law, all about community and how we all care about each other, all the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty and the words of Emma Lazarus uttering "Give me your tired, your weak, your huddle masses yearning to breath free," cannot provide decent health care for 1/6 of our population at all, and probably another 1/2 to 2/3 with insufficient health care? I dont understand how we think we are the best. Who are these 25-30% of the population who always poll in saying that we are on the right direction, or that we dont need universal health care? I just dont understand Americans. What is it about this country that says one things on the surface but does something completely different. Where are our family values? Family values of care, nurturance, community, and respect.

How is it that all of Western Europe and many Latin American countries offer free health care for all? For goodness sake, the country that we for decades have loathed, Cuba, has one of the best health care systems in the world! I dont understand how this is possible. We always talk about how its socialism, communism, state control, the terror! Our allies, Britain, France, all these nations offer free health care. As a consequence, they have a much higher life expectancy, they have lower rates of diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, obesity, cancer, etc etc etc etc. It is a cultural problem. Michael Moore was right. The problem is that in America, its all about me. In Europe, its all about us. This Jeffersonian ideal, which has been central to America for centuries, the American dream is individualism. Individualism is a good thing in a way. But we have taken it to a huge extreme. But where are the politicians answering the desires of the people. People in this country want universal health care - over 75%. Yet again I dont understand who those 25% are. The richest 1%, fine. The richest 5% fine. Corporate CEO's, stock holders, businessmen, executives, political officials, entrepreneurs, fine. But ladies and gentlemen, they do not encompass 25% of this country by any measure at all. Who are these people with an ideology that is completely against their own self-interest.

The culprit is this whole idea of big government vs small government. Republicans and conservatives have done a good job of scaring people away from the idea of an efficient government for and by the people. They have deliberately constructed a message that says, we want to get elected to make government smaller, so that it doesnt interfere in your lives. Its all a deception unfortunately. During the Hillary Clinton health care reform crisis of the 1990s, Republicans charged she wanted to socialize medicine. Whats next, they asked? A command economy and a hammer and sickle replacing the stars on the American flag? Fear won. Yet it is 2007 and we are the only industrialized nation with no universal health care plan.

I will digress and say for a moment that our lack of a universal health care system directly impacts every aspect of society. Its plain and simple. Because of this broken system, our people die, spend large sums of money on medicines, and create a pill-popping culture. Have a headache? Go to CVS. Have a soar throat? Go to CVS. OVer the counter medications are the new American candies. Europeans, Latin Americans and Asians dont nearly consume as much medicine as we do. Think about it. No universal health care = no doctor to see because you cant afford one = over the counter medication alternative with no prescription necessary = more money for drug companies. Why do we have grossely obese people in the millions in this country. That is downright disgusting and we are completely to blame. Look at our diets. Look at our eating habits and working habits. Its a deeper cultural problem not just a systemic one.

How do we find it acceptable that people do not have money for treatment and die? What kind of country is this? Shame on this country. Universal health care should be a right not a privilege. A country is better off if the people are healthy and strong, we all know that, so why dont we take care of our most needed. Is it a racial issue? I doubt it considering most of the people in Moore's movie were white. Then what is the problem? It is completely disgusting that we don't provide adequate health care for 9/11 workers. These people and many like them should be at political speeches, conventions, debates, and on primetime news telling their stories and educating the public on this issue. It is a pressing issue. They should be put on stage at the Democratic National Convention next year to tell their stories. Unbelievable. How can we let someone die of cancer because their insurance company denied them money for chemotherapy. How is that not murder? Where is the "pro-life" in that? Republicans talk so much about being "pro-life" and that "every life is unique and special." Why don't they actually adhere to that stance? Ridiculous.

By looking at Britain, we can see that the government cares about the health and well-being of its citizens. Why dont we? Why do we let drug companies do this? Who are these people voting for Republicans and some Democrats who continue to pander to these companies?Who are these people? I can assure you they dont know a thing about the issue. We are the most depressed country in the West. No wonder the drug companies want to keep it that way. I am surprised our collective body hasnt grown immune to these drugs already. Drugs should not be nearly as expensive as they are in this country yet we allow it.

Thank goodness we have reached a political consensus in this country where all the Democrats agree on this issue. The Republicans will go down in defeat on this issue yet why do people still vote for people like this? How, I just dont understand. I really want to know who those 30% opposition faction is in every poll.

Are people opposed to using their taxdollars to fund other people's health care? Dont they understand that it works both ways. You pay into the system a fraction, but you get back a huge reward. Same goes for free education.

It is time we have a universal health care plan. Lets actually join the rest of the highly industrialized world and live up to our status as a superpower.

Elizabeth Edwards, cancer-stricken wife of former Senator and Democratic Presidential contender John Edwards, came out in support of gay marriage today at a press conference at the San Francisco Pride Parade. She said explicitly, "I don't know why someone else's marriage has anything to do with me. I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage."

My fellow progressives, this is historic news.  Her comments and her willingness to be open about her views despite knowing that they don't parallel those of her civil union-supporting husband indicate the growing political capital of the LGBT community. Never has a viable top tier presidential candidate come out in support of gay marriage and I admit that I wish John Edwards would have the courage to do the same. However, Elizabeth is as close to her husband like nobody else and the fact that she is so prominent especially with the recent public sympathy over her recurring cancer makes for history. 

I was honestly shocked when I heard the news break just an hour ago on Sunday. It is definitely uplifting. Who knows, maybe she can get John to sign on too, or maybe some other presidential spouses. The best part about it is that Elizabeth blamed John's reluctance to support gay marriage on the grounds that he grew up in a 1950s southern town! That was hysterical yet she couldnt have hit the nail on the dot any better. I love her for it and may she be blessed with good health. 

What do you all think of this? Do you think this will create a shift among the Democratic candidates? Public attitudes?

(Im still getting over my glee in terms of how historic this is and indicative of how far we've come so quickly)

At the Take Back America conference held in Washington DC this week, the top Presidential candidates spoke to the 3,000 progressive activists, policy wonks and politicians presiding to convince them that they are the true progressive candidate going into 2008. Yet, what a remarkable shift in political ideology from the past 4 cycles. It seems that a new progressive movement is afoot and it is gaining steam not just due to the massive dissatisfaction with the Bush era and conservative policies, but through the enthusiasm of Democrats in recent months for the chance to seize the moment and move the country farther to the left to a magnitude that hasn't come to fruition since the days of the civil rights era of the 1960s or maybe even the New Deal Roosevelt Era of the 1930s and 40s.

Candidate after candidate rolled on stage uttering words such as the need for a "progressive agenda in America." We all may recall how Democrats have strayed away from their progressive-liberal roots in recent cycles post-Reagan era stigmatization of liberalism in American culture. The byproduct of that was the Democratic Leadership Council and the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat at best. Therefore it is very fulfilling to hear the Democratic Party of today use "progressive" in a new light, a re-energized way of signaling a new direction for the country. It has signaled the beginning of a new progressive movement and a movement that is actually winning at the polls.

The 2006 mid-term elections ushered in Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. The more important victory was the large number of progressives that got elected into the Senate that year. At the conference, some of these movers and shakers in the progressive movement were featured speakers on panels including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Can we imagine for one second the magnitude of this massive political shift. The Senate, post 2006, actually has its first self-described Socialist. Sherrod Brown, a progressive populist, won in a state that has been solidly Republican for decades yet Ohio now has not only Sherrod Brown but a very progressive governor, Ted Strickland who recently signed into law gay rights legislation. The same goes for Colorado and its rising star governor Bill Ritter and their anti-discrimination bill. Ladies and gentleman, this is not just a temporary blip on the radar screen caused by deep dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. The former governor of Colorado was a conservative Republican, as was the state historically, yet they elected a majority Democratic legislature, a very progressive Governor, and a Hispanic Senator in 2004. The 2008 Senate seat in Colorado is open and the door for liberal Mark Udall representing liberal Boulder to win is wide open. In fact he is heavily favored to win. Can you imagine Colorado, a Western state bordering Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and Nebraska being a bastion of deep blue in the West by 2008? The answer to that is definitely yes and thats exactly whats happening in Colorado. One cannot parallel the blunders in Iraq for such a deep political realignment. It is indicative of a larger political realignment that is currently in the process of developing in this country.

Going back to the Presidential election, the successes of 2006 were part of a larger process going into 2008. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in his closing speech for Take Back America 2007 stated that the 2006 election was the watershed beginning of a massive shift. The 2008 election will seal that shift for a generation. Again I strongly reiterate, it is much more than just the Iraq War. Conservatism in this country has grown and flourished since Reagan's ascension in 1980 and Carter's embarrassing defeat ala the Iran hostage crisis. Liberalism was dead at that point as we were perceived as weak, incompetent, and wrong for the country. Anti-gay activists and pro-Lifers gained power and momentum. That era continued into the 1990s, and gained even more influence in the 2000s as an atmosphere of fear plagued the post-9/11 world. Can you imagine Al Gore in 2000 using "progressive" to categorize the political ideology of his policy proposals? Never. That is why, I emphasize again, the magnitude of this moment. Every candidate on that stage that we can actually take seriously (excluding Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson basically sounded the same more or less on health care, education, the War in Iraq, national security, terrorism, the environment, global warming, the AIDS crisis, Darfur, spending, corruption, competence, and world leadership. Something remarkable was evident at that conference. Although we may all support varying candidates based on personality, style, experience, or approach, we were all part of the same emerging movement.

On that stage, the candidates spoke to the liberal base of the party. It was evident from the beginning that not only was Barack Obama well received, but it was a pre-conceived fact that that would occur with the multitude of Obama wearing attendees at the conference throughout the three days. Obama's speech was very positively received and I must say that for a guy who strongly prefers Hillary Clinton, I must give him a lot of credit. The crowd went wild for him, clapping at almost every line that he uttered. I will also express my deep sympathy for John Edwards, who has a great message, but was in the predicament of going right after Obama. This created an atmosphere where about 1/3 of the audience left right after Obama finished all the while people stampeding (and I will admit I stood on a char desperately aiming to get a closeup photo) to the front of the stage to get autographs and photos taken. It was just unimaginable that someone could top his speech. People were overwhelmed and emotionally drained creating a very awkward situation for Edwards where the crowd was enthusiastic but not nearly as much as for Obama. Unfortunately, I resorted to watching Bill Richardson's speech online and it seemed like a good speech, and well received but not a first tier breakout speech by any means.

I will devote an entire paragraph to Hillary Clinton because I feel her speech asks for such. First and foremost, her speech was very dull and what I would call "safe." She said nothing that got booed in the first 25 minutes nor much applause either. Now I say that because the progressive crowd at Take Back America isn't too cozy with Hillary because of her stance on the war and funding. People just weren't excited by her. I blame the early morning hour (8am) which was strategic timing so that she wouldn't go on the same day as Obama and Edwards. It was actually announced in the latter part of the first day of the conference that she would speak on Wednesday instead of Tuesday which I understood as a tactical campaign move. It was also strategic for her to talk about Iraq last which was a way for the negative atmosphere not to set the tone for her entire speech. She was indeed booed, as media reports have circulated, for a comment she made referring to the fact that the US military has done its job and that it is time for the Iraqi government to step up and do its job too. I, for one, agree with that. But people like "code Pink" attack people on the left and eat them alive. I actually was very angry at the Code Pink women for heckling her and Nancy Pelosi and I actually struck a conversation with one of the ladies from their organization. It was very discouraging to see that people don't understand the limitations of a certain number of votes in the Senate. I expressed my frustration with the ability within the Republican Party to unite under a mantra that is winnable and as the record has shown has won in the past with great success. Yet our side bickers for not going far enough and we just destroy each other and lose.

With the anger came optimism. There is a new emerging progressive era coming and this country is ready for change. People are sick of conservative government. People are sick of vetoes on stem cell research funding. People are sick of the lack of good health care. People are sick of an incompetent government that destroys our reputation around the world. People are done with the Conservative Era. Our generation is vastly different from any before us. We are much more likely to be pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights and gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-living wage, and pro-universal health care. Our generation hates the hawkish foreign policy that has dominated this country since the Vietnam War. A new progressive majority is building with the help of the influx of Hispanics. People are ready for not just turning the chapter, but writing a new book. People are ready for a completely different kind of politics. There is something brewing, and I sensed it at Take Back America 2007. Again, its not just about Iraq. We, as progressives, must look at the broader picture.

A new progressive era is upon us as Americans are ready to embrace liberal values because liberal values ARE American values. This mantra was constantly reiterated at the conference. I knew at Take Back America 2007 that progressives have taken control of the Democratic Party and they aren't being alienated but embraced. Progressives are replacing the moderates. Progressivism is becoming mainstream. Universal health care is supported by all the Democratic candidates. Such a plan would have been heretical and Socialist only 10-20 years ago. Every candidate supports Civil Unions for gays and lesbians publicly and enthusiastically. Although I acknowledge that isn't enough, the country is moving in the right direction on the issue. I'm confident that privately many of these candidates support full marriage equality such as Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd. 46% of Americans support full marriage equality, according to a newly released Gallup Poll. That's the highest in history. It is, after all, nearly a majority. A vast majority want us to do something about global warming. A vast majority are willing to do their part to help that happen. This country is based on liberal values. We cannot forget that nor shall we abandon that. A massive political realignment is on the horizon and it is developing right as I write. A new Progressive Era is upon us and we must embrace it and propose our plans to the American people. We must do it in a way that breeds consensus and fairness. I embrace the impending Progressive majority with open arms.

As an openly gay man, I feel compelled to express my views on gay pride parades specifically after attending the Washington DC Capital Pride Parade last Saturday with a few friends. You may hear a lot of criticism from older LGBT people of these events but its rare to find it coming from a young, politically active college student. Before I proceed, dont get me wrong, I will point out the faults of gay pride parades but the actual presence of a parade is necessary for visibility and eventual absorbance into the mainstream of society, which I for one believe the gay community has pretty much reached more or less (as Time magazine famously stated recently with their title "Yup, She's Mainstream" in reference to Ellen DeGeneres.)

I will also point out that my sheer disappointment in DC Pride may have been related to the relatively underwhelming performance of the parade itself in comparison to New York City extravagent Pride which is where I am from. But this isnt the heart of the matter. The frustration and disgust that I feel as a person who constantly hopes for LGBT Equality and Marriage is perpetuated by these images within "the gay community."

Gay Pride Parades are probably the only time in your life that you will find on public display LGBT senior citizens walking in front of a Big Bear float with hairy and practically naked older men who are in front of a delegation of PFLAG members (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), behind a cotingency of "marriage equality" holding 5 year olds with their two moms behind a transsexual with her large, fake, plastic breasts literally out in the open. I am a die-hard liberal with a little L, and a Progressive meaning I do believe in free expression, however, I just feel there is a line between freedom of expression and indecency. Call me conservative, but I just dont find it appropriate for transsexuals with their breasts hanging and men with their penises practically in the air next to small children holding sings that say " I love my two daddies." Its just revolting.

That isnt even that worst aspect of these events. Are we not trying to stop discrimination, prejudice, hatred, ignorance and bigotry? Arent we all on the same team? How is it that such events aimed at visibility are supposed to increase acceptance when stereotypes of gays being ultraeffeminate and sexual deviants are strongly perpetuated by such public displays? Yes, we can exhibit free expression of the variations of genders, sexes and sexual orientations. That is completely fine. But how is it OK to have children as young as toddlers in the same parade as such revolting images? I just dont see how a hairy, 50 year old man in his leather hat and strap ons is beneficial to the greater struggle of acceptance, awareness, and equality under the law.

I have no problem with drag queens and kings. It displays the open expression of femininity and masculinity. However, since when does being LGBT have anything to do with open expression of one's distorted overweight body? Since when does being LGBT have anything to do with women showing their bare breasts to hoardes of crowds some of which look on at the parade as if it were a circus act (one example being my moderately conservative Soviet immigrant parents.) Do you see Puerto Rican women showing their bare breasts during the Puerto Rican Day Parade? Or do you see Vietnam Veterans waving their penises in the air during Memorial Day celebrations? I just dont see the correlation between being part of the LGBT community and sexual perversion. That is exactly what our opponents attack us and label us as and we cannot move forward at a greater pace until gay pride becomes a celebration of our families, our friends, our neighbors, our accomplishments, our identity, and our culture.

If we continue to focus on the sexual aspects of sexual orientation, which I find to be irrelevant when it comes to LGBT Equality since Privacy Rights should be guaranteed and the government should have no role in your personal sex life, then we face the risk of creating a backlash against all the work that we have worked tirelessly to achieve.

Not all stereotypes are true. But some are perpetuated and directly influenced by the afflicted community and it is our duty as LGBT individuals to stand up and demand decency in celebration of who we are as a people. We dont need to have these gut-wrenching images of obese men and women running naked in the streets to show our pride in ourselves. Im not saying we need to conform to "mainstream heterosexual society" and lose a lot of the features that make LGBT individuals different. All I hope for is that we showcase our determination and will to move forward with pride in a universally clean and beneficial way not through bare breasts but through words, actions, and love.

I would love for some input.

So I blog from my desk at the Alliance for Justice in the Dupont Circle area of Washington DC on a Friday in June. I havent written a post in 4 months but I am starting to get a little more motivated to start blogging again. It may be due to my position at AFJ as Outreach/Blog Intern.

Thanks to Campus Progress for hosting a great social gathering on Tuesday at the Science Club in DC by the way. Great way to meet up with old friends!

So I take a new perspective on blogging as a "Washington Insider." As an intern with vast connections from the Hill, to the Democratic National Committee, and to various non-profits, I feel being an intern is a great opportunity to obtain a vast array of perspectives on politics that one wouldnt in, for instance, a dorm room at UVA in Charlottesville, Virginia.

As an intern at AFJ, I have close connections with the latest news on judicial nominations (Leslie Southwick especially), the status and restoration of Habeas Corpus, and the status on progress towards dismantling the conservative agenda specifically pertaining to the Judiciary system.

Comments? Questions? Suggestions?

Former Iowa Governor and Democratic Presidential Candidate Tom Vilsack dropped out of the 2008 Presidential Race today citing financial constraints as the "only" reason for his decision. Apparently the campaign has been having financial constraints since Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama entered the races in mid to late January after which all the big donors flooded away from the "lower tier" candidates. Hillary is a money making machine. She has raised by far more money than any other candidate and the money just keeps on piling up, such as her "One Million in One Week Campaign" on her website. As of this afternoon, Hillary has raised over $450,000 with this online-only campaign. 

During his announcement speech, Vilsack pointed out how discontent he was at the fact that the campaigns these days have been so vigorously focused on money that candidates like himself just don't have the resources to continue. It appears as though Vilsack won't be the first candidate. It seems only the very beginning of the race as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are still in the "Exploratory Committee" phases of their campaigns.  It is interesting to observe how Clinton and Obama have completely dominated the scene, more so after Obama officially announced 2 weeks ago. The latest feud between Obama and Clinton that broke into the news 2 days ago just further displays how the Democratic primary race is dominated by these two politicos. 

It is safe to assume that Vilsack won't be the first early defector. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Wesley Clark all seem to be on the radar of extinction especially the latter 2 because they seem to not be getting the endorsements and and financial resources that a nationwide presidential campaign demands. Opinion polls of who voters would most likely vote for within the Democratic primary have not really budged, and if anything, Hillary's numbers are growing. Her favorability nationwide has never been higher at 58% and the amount of people who say that a woman will be elected President within the next 5 years (including the 2008 and 2012 Presidential election) is at an all-time high of 2 out of 3 Americans. This actually has gone up from 50% back in 2005. This displays Hillary's growing fan base as people begin to see her as a viable, strong, serious, and most importantly winnable candidate. A solid majority of Americans just dont like Mitt Romney, John McCain and most of the other Republican candidates out there so basically the 2008 race is all about which candidate the Democrats choose.

The race is starting to heat up and the Hillary doubters are starting to fizzle back in droves. Let's not forget John Edwards. His campaign though seems to be at a standstill. It seems Americans just don't see him as a serious Presidential contender. His numbers haven't budged. He also has not been getting nearly the amount of publicity as Hillary and Obama have. If anything, Edwards has been getting negative publicity due to his recent firings of two campaign bloggers who were involved in an inflammatory anti-Catholic scandal. 

The Republicans: what to say about them? One might be intrigued enough to visit John McCain's "Exploratory Committee" website and notice how morbid, dark, and depressing it is. As we all know, image is key in politics these days and Hillary and Obama both have red, white and blue all over their websites. McCain, on the other hand, seems to like black and white. The organization of the site is also terrible, and his campaign video on the front evokes Nazi-like nationalistic propaganda. Mitt Romney seems to be in trouble with the Christian Right for his 1994 pro-gay, then 2003 anti-gay flip flopping accident. From current analysis, the Evangelical Christians are dissatisfied with Giuliani because he is not even a social conservative by any means and he refuses to pander to them, and also dissatisfied with McCain's reluctance to support a Federal Marriage Amendment. It seems the Republican Party is on the verge of collapse with this race between the more moderate Giuliani-esque fiscal conservatives and the more staunchly socially conservative Romney's, Tom Tancredo's, and Sam Brownback's of America. And who didn't see this coming? Even Mary Cheney did.

Published: February 23, 2007 

With the victory of Senator Jim Webb last November, Democrats in Virginia have officially designated Virginia as a "purple state" and rightfully so. Northern Virginia, outside the suburbs of greater Washington, DC is exploding with economic and population growth. This region is also a hotbed of growing progressive political leanings. At the JJ Dinner featuring speakers Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Congressman Bobby Scott and Senator Jim Webb, all were in attendance to endorse the candidacy of Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. This was Obama's first campaign visit to Virginia and the first endorsement from a sitting governor. As Virginia becomes a critical battleground state in 2008, this endorsement is significant.

Senator Obama's speech was poignant and well received by the audience. He frequently referred to education, his life story, and his message and motif of the "audacity of hope" which reverberated well with the crowd. Although it was interesting to see the various Edwards and Hillary supporters in the crowd who came just to see the show, over 25 University of Virginia Democrats came to volunteer at the event to show their support for the rising young star in the Democratic Party. It is worth noting also that there was much speculation at the event that if Obama were to win the Democratic primaries, former governor Mark Warner would be an unbeatable choice for Vice President forming a ticket that would crush any Republican ticket. Warner's enthusiasm, charm, and Bill Clinton-esque personality and political leanings would serve Obama well in Virginia which has a more moderate Democratic Party than say Hillary Clinton's New York base. 

All in all, the dinner was a huge success for Barack Obama. His rising popularity among Democratic primary voters seems only to grow as the field of the Hillary, Edwards, and Obama triumvirate travel the country trying to prove to Democrats and all Americans alike that they are the best candidate to move the country forward, end the war in Iraq, enact universal health care by 2012, and promote economic fairness. It seems from my observations at the College Democrats of America National Leadership Summit, the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting, and the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner that the 2008 Democratic candidates are the strongest and most diverse group of candidates that the Democrats have ever seen in American history. This is a testament to not only the changing face of the party but also of society as the possibility of a female or black president becomes ever-more on the horizon of reality.  

Published: February 18, 2007