In some ways, Obama has the tastes of a 72 year old man; McCain has the tastes of a 47 year old whippersnapper. Who knew?

More than 6.5 million Americans under the age of 30 voted in the 2008 presidential primaries. Time Magazine and other prominent publications dubbed 2008 "The Year of the Youth Vote." Political commentators and analysts have argued that the surge in the youth vote and its virtually unwavering support for Barack Obama was a key factor behind the Senator's ascent to prominence and his ultimate victory in securing his spot as the Democratic nominee for president. However, it remains unclear as to whether or not the youth voting bloc will be as powerful during the general election.

A new poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal shows, with a 3.1 percent margin of error, that 13 percent of Americans believe Barack Obama is Muslim.

Beyond my obvious dismay that Americans don't know much about the people they're voting for, I'm troubled that insinuating that a candidate is Muslim is the fodder of a smear campaign. Apparently operatives have moved on from the Swift Boat/illegitimate black baby breed of underhanded tricks and decided to degrade politicians by implying their connection to a religion practiced by over a billion people worldwide. Great.

via Faith in Public Life.

Critics of young Americans like to argue that we are too wrapped up in ourselves to care about politics, that we're too busy obsessing over our Facebook profiles to get up out of our seats and attend a political rally or vote. David Von Drehle's article in Time magazine should help those critics finally put that tired old stereotype to rest. Today’s young people do care about politics, but despite increased youth voting in 2004 and 2006, politicians still acted like we didn’t matter. No one really reached out and asked us for our support. But, as Von Drehle points out, Illinois Senator Barack Obama did in the run up to the 2008 primaries, and young people responded.

There's no doubt that Obama has lit a fire under young Americans, but it would be a mistake to view young people's interest in Obama solely as a response to his personal narrative. As Von Drehle correctly points out, Obama's success has as much to do with his organization and strategy as it has to do with his message:

Obama's support among youth is not just a matter of mood; it is a product of effort and organization, of finding his supporters and getting them to the polls. … Obama's outreach to students didn't spring from some starry-eyed principle. It started as a specific element of his early strategy in Iowa. The first-in-the-nation caucuses allow 17-year-olds to vote if they are going to turn 18 before the general election, which means most high school seniors are eligible. To win those kids, Obama did something unusual in politics: he made them a genuine priority. After his rallies in towns across the state, he met backstage with student leaders from the area — a privilege most campaigns reserve for local VIPs and fund raisers.  

So when it comes down to it, young people today aren't really lazy or indifferent; we're just human. In general, people don't get excited about politics (or anything else) unless they know their voices are valued, that they can actually make a difference. Early in his campaign, Obama bet that if he told us we matter, we'd be more likely to support his candidacy. And his bet paid off.

It can’t be a good thing when a state fires its head of science education for promoting science education. But that’s what happened when the Texas Education Agency put its science curriculum director Chris Comer on administrative leave in late October, leading to what she calls a forced resignation.

We begin our story on October 26 when Comer forwarded an e-mail announcing a presentation titled, “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” by Barbara Forrest. Forrest co-authored a book arguing that creationist politics are advancing the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools, and are doing so through public relations rather than through scientific research. Shortly after forwarding the e-mail, Comer was put on administrative leave.

During last night's debate, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked about whether she would read a book to 2nd Grade Children about same-sex couples.   In her reply she said something which caught my attention, and when I re-watched the debate I heard exactly what she was saying.

Clinton said: "I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children with the many differences that are in the world, and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation."

Was Hillary Clinton implying that sexual orientation is a choice, and therefore is something that can be changed?  Perhaps she mispoke, but the comment was certainly not taken out of context, so what exactly did she mean when she said that we should "respect other people and the choices that other people make" in regard to sexual orientation? 

On Obama and Giuliani and Israel/Palestine.

Today MySpace and MTV announced the details of the presidential candidate forums they will hold this fall. Hosted on college campuses across the country, broadcast on MTV and streamed live on MySpace, the forums seek to foster “candid, unfiltered” discussions between young voters and the major Republican and Democratic candidates.

As I write in an identical blog post at HuffPo, the blogosphere seems abuzz with optimism about the forums, the latest evidence that 2008 won’t be your mother and father’s election. “MTV and MySpace have hit up an interactive format with the potential to pioneer a whole new way of doing candidate debates/forums,” writes Michael Connery, co-founder of Future Majority, a prominent blog with well-done reporting on progressive youth politics. (Yes, that Mike Connery who came at Campus Progress back in June.)

So I link to Slate a lot. I’ll admit it: I’m obsessed. But I can’t help but share an article today about the continuation of the family troubles of Giuliani. There’s one Obama Girl here that he didn’t count on: his daughter Caroline.

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.

With only six months before the first Caucus in Iowa, the race for the Democratic and Republican nomination is in full swing, but there could be one more name added to the list of potential candidates, a third party candidate.   Could a third party Independent candidate really sweep in and bring an end to the two-party domination of politics as we know it?

Why release a health care plan when your supporters can imagine one for you? The Kaiser Family Foundation recently released an opinion poll on health care, asking respondents which of the 2008 presidential candidates, regardless of party, best represents their views on the issue. The results were surprising: Hillary Clinton took the lead with 15%, flanked by Barack Obama with 5%, and followed by the rest of the pack (Rudy Giuliani at 3%, John McCain and John Edwards at 2%).

Its easy to rationalize Clinton's lead -- her claim to national fame, remember, was her 1990's health care reform proposal -- but Obama's support is surprising. For starters, Obama doesn't have a health care plan, so its unclear what five percent of the population is thinking. He even places 4th among Republican voters, and doubles Edwards in the Democratic field. What's going on here?

My first reaction was to question the validity of the poll; when asked a difficult question, respondents will often just name the candidate they know of or support. But even that doesn't explain why Obama's nonexistent health care policy comes in second place -- According to a recent Time poll, 31% of Americans don't know very much about, just know the name of, or have never heard of Barack Obama. The respective numbers are lower for Giuliani (16%), McCain (20%), and Edwards (25%) -- meaning Obama actually overcame a deficit in name recognition. And in terms of general support, Obama tied McCain and Edwards with 48% of the population saying they would support him in the general election, while Guiliani actually scored 2% higher. Obama has the least name recognition and public support of the four candidates, yet he somehow comes out on top on the issue health care. Does the public know something we don't know?

My theory is that, to five percent of the population, the fact that Obama does not have a health care plan is insignificant to their support of it. They know him so well from his social networking site and his resemblance to the messiah that they are sure he represents their views on health care. That John Edwards has made the issue a central part of his campaign or that the press has routinely criticized Obama for his lack of a health care plan does nothing to change their minds -- the public has Obamamania, and reality only gets in the way.  

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine will endorse Senator Barack Obama this Saturday. Outside of potentially improving Obama's popularity in the South, this endorsement strengthens a 2008 possibility birthed by Mark Warner's withdrawal in October.

Students were out in force this morning at the Democratic National Committee's winter conference here in DC. All the major 2008 primary candidates spoke--we saw Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Clark, and Kucinich.

Obama's entrance was electric, and like a rock star, the quieter moments of his performance were interrupted by crazed audience members screaming, "I love you!" and "You're the next president!" But his speech was tall on rhetoric and short on policy. He spoke primarily about "hope," and in what seemed like a dig at Hillary, said, "We don't want another election where voters are holding their noses and feel like they're simply choosing the lesser of two evils." And he reminded us that, unlike Clinton and Edwards, "I was opposed to this invasion--publicly and frequently--before it began."

Speaking of the war, when Clinton took the podium, she was heckled by antiwar folks who demanded that she "bring the troops home now" instead of simply capping the number of them that could be deployed to Iraq. Clinton swore to end the war if elected president, but repeated her talking point about finding the "right end" to the war in Iraq, as opposed to just any end. Despite the drama (or perhaps adding to it), Clinton's level of support in the room was huge: tons of posters and diverse supporters rushing to their feet to cheer her appearance.

Of the three major candidates, Edwards had the least ecstatic welcome, but he enjoyed the most enthusiastic standing ovations as he used anecdotes to illustrate the plight of the poor around the world--from a 5-year old boy in a refugee camp caring for his 2-year old sister, to an 8-year old American girl going to bed hungry, to a father who must take his sick child to the emergency room for basic medical care because the family is uninsured. His call was, "Will you stand up?" And the crowd certainly did, especially when he demanded, "Will you stand with organized labor?"

Dodd delivered a surprisingly energetic call for a return to American greatness in foreign policy. I'm not sure if Dodd's statement on bipartisanship made very much sense--"Bipartisanship for me means getting Republicans to agree with Democratic principles"--but the crowd gobbled it up. Each candidate was allowed up to 100 posters in the ballroom. Fascinatingly, when Dodd finished speaking, a few of his young supporters traded in their "Dodd" signs for "Hillary 08" posters, which, by the way, were being distributed throughout the hall by some attractive young women.