As the United States and China wrap up their two-day "Strategic and Economic Dialogue," it's more apparent than ever that the two find themselves in a marriage that neither can easily dissolve and that neither fully wants.
The speeches struck all the rights notes - "the United States and China share mutual interests," President Obama announced. "If we advance those interests through cooperation, our people will benefit, and the world will be better off - because our ability to partner with each other is a prerequisite for progress on many of the most pressing global challenges" Those sentiments were echoed by both Hillary Clinton and Timothy Geithner in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal. The Chinese delegation spoke of the two nations as traveling in the same ship, a ship which was wracked by the global financial storm of the past year. In general, the rhetoric could not have demonstrated more clearly that both see themselves as locked in a relationship of mutual dependence.
On January 1, 2007, Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken published a widely read article in the LegalTimes entitled, "How Does Your State Rank on The Democracy Index." Gerken argued that just as the Environmental Performance Index ("EPI") shamed countries such as Belgium to upgrade their environmental practices, a "Democracy Index" would embarrass state and localities into reforming their electoral administration through competition.
Since Bush vs. Gore in 2000, the debate about electoral reform has been dominated by anecdotes and overheated abstractions. Liberals like me have long suspected that states such as Ohio and Florida were deliberately disenfranchising minority voters sympathetic to Democratic candidates. Conservatives complained that voter fraud and urban political machines were allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots at the expense of Republican candidates. With her article, Gerken contended that a Democracy Index would replace a debate dominated by shouting with data driven arguments instead:
Congressional Democrats have scored positive, or even, favorable / approval ratings according to all eight polling firms that have conducted public opinion surveys on them since the Inauguration. These figures are remarkable because, in most polls, they are the first positive approval ratings from Congressional Democrats since early 2007 (and, in some cases, since early 2002, after the September 11th attacks). However, it is not just Congressional Democrats who have seen a dramatic improvement in their image since President Obama took office. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also entered stratospheric, 2-1 positive territory on favorabliliy over the past few months.
Check out Clinton's favorability ratings compared to this time one year ago (more in the extended entry):
It's nice when a U.S. Secretary of State gets pissed off at and does something about the flagrant inhumanity of the main recipient of U.S. foreign and military aid, Israel:
By Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents
February 27, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. A leading political source in Jerusalem noted that senior Clinton aides have made it clear that the matter will be central to Clinton's planned visit to Israel next Tuesday.
Ahead of Clinton's visit, special U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is expected to issue a sharply worded protest on the same matter when he arrives here Thursday.
"Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza," senior U.S. officials told Israeli counterparts last week, and reiterated Washington's view by saying that "the U.S. expects Israel to meet its commitments on this matter."
Two weeks ago, four senior European Union officials sent a letter to the prime minister, foreign minister, defense minister and Yitzhak Herzog, the minister charged with humanitarian aid transfers to the Gaza Strip, protesting delays in the flow of aid through the crossings into Gaza. . . .
Now don't back down girl! Of course, the Israel Lobby quickly responded (and reported; WCBS doesn't allow readers to know what Clinton said that made seemingly 'everyone' so angry):
Secretary of State Clinton is focusing on climate change during her visit to China. Admirable, though I'm glad I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read the start of this New York Times article:
BEIJING - Declaring "we hope you won't make the same mistakes we made," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton invited China to join the United States in an ambitious effort to curb greenhouse gases, as she toured an energy-efficient power plant in Beijing on Saturday.
"When we were industrializing and growing, we didn't know any better; neither did Europe," Mrs. Clinton said. "Now we're smart enough to figure out how to have the right kind of growth." ...
What had been a truce between Israel and the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip seems to have abruptly come to a halt; with the Israelis blaming Hamas and Hamas blaming Israeli oppression of the displaced Palestinians for the simmering hostilities that are now boiling over into military-scale violence.
Before the recent holidays and an immoderate amount of snow buried me in things that could not be done on the computer we had been having a conversation about the strategic importance of our relationship with Egypt. Within that series of discussions we explored the influence of the political opposition, and we considered the fragility of President Mubarak's hold on power.
We also noted the immediate proximity of Egypt to the Gaza Strip.
Today we're going to tie all of that together-and the end result of all that tying is that we better keep a close eye on Egypt, because trouble in Gaza has spilled over into trouble in Cairo....and that's one more Middle Eastern problem we don't need.
by Cody Lyon
As is often the case in the empire state, New York once again finds itself under the spotlight as drama builds over who Governor David Patterson might pick, if, as planned, current Senator Hillary Clinton resigns some time next year to assume the Secretary of State position. Truth be told, a number of worthy names have been whispered here and there, but only a couple of them have made their way to the main stages of discussion, debate and that sometimes annoying media glare from the rest of the country that has always seen New York as a national soap opera.
Among the whispers is a Cuomo, several women of which a couple happen to be Latina and another from Up-State.
Of course, there's no denying the biggest fish in the fry, a Kennedy, a name that evokes political reverence, respect and legacy. But in spite of tremendous political accomplishment, that same family, through no fault of its own, has also come to represent an American dynasty, the oft clichéd version of our royalty.' And while there's nothing wrong with Royalty per se, or Americans expressing affection for the tradition that comes with it, there is reason to question, show concern or perhaps raise flags when one's family genes potentially provide an untested individual with what could be a simple coronation into national political office where the power is more than symbolic.
History books teach us the United States is a free and open Democracy that consists of government by and for the people. So, considering that `by' essentially equals election, it might seem more fair, that in choosing New York's next Senator, the one set to succeed Hillary Clinton, the Governor might consider appointing an individual who has at least gotten votes for public office, or consider tapping a public official who has earned more tangible political wings beyond being the daughter of one of the nation's most revered presidents and a high profile member of our nation's often romanticized but powerful political dynasties.
Picking Caroline Kennedy to succeed Hillary Clinton as Senator from New York might actually send a contradictory message to Americans, the world, but perhaps more importantly, to the children of New York state. It could, inadvertently impact the spirit of the message that the election of Barack Obama reaffirmed, that hopeful seed our parents plant when they tell us while we're still young and naive, that anyone, regardless of race, income and yes, name, can be elected to high office in the United States.
Choosing Caroline Kennedy as the Senator from New York, based on nothing more than her good deeds that are boosted by familial association, dilutes that message, and at least on the surface, seems to say that like Royalty, position is indeed an attribute, even a card of entitlement in American politics.
I find the traditional media intolerable for its fake little dramas. Obama for instance promised a centrist administration that took in points of view from all sides, and he is delivering on that promise. I didn't like what he said at the time, but I understood he said it. It is not therefore a betrayal of the left that he is doing exactly what he said he'd do. The narrative that Obama was an ideologically progressive was nearly always in contradiction to his own statements and political choices, as Chris noted on Hardball last night.
The drama over Hillary Clinton is similarly ridiculous. In one primary debate, in what was a high-profile moment, Obama snarkily noted he'd want Clinton to advise him should he become President.
And so he did exactly what he promised he'd do during the campaign. He chose Hillary Clinton as someone who would advise him on foreign policy.
There's no question that Clinton's views on Iraq are tilted more towards hawkishness than many of us would like, but I've noted before that the criteria I'm going to use to evaluate her performance is Israel. My sense of the conflict is that, though there are many obstacles to peace, domestic US politics in the form of AIPAC has always been the elephant in the room. There are signs the group itself is moderating, the political environment has become much more favorable for diplomatic work and the Clinton's have the credibility and gravitas to work on a two state solution without worrying about upsetting right-wing Jews.
Clinton believed in Presidential destiny, and not content to just be a Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton can certainly translate this desire 'go big' into another realm by solving the dominant problem in the Middle East. I hope she does.
Senator Hillary Clinton is likely to be nominated for secretary of state after the Nov. 27 U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, according to an aide to President-elect Barack Obama.
Potential hurdles related to the financial disclosures of Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, have been worked out, said the aide, who asked not to be named.
The appointment, should the New York Democrat accept the post, would make her Obama's highest-ranking Cabinet official.
President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving, a new milestone for the former first lady and a convergence of two political forces who fought hard for the presidency.
One week after the former primary rivals met secretly to discuss the idea of Clinton becoming the nation's top diplomat, an Obama adviser said Thursday that the two sides were moving quickly toward making it a reality, barring any unforeseen problems.
The senior adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president-elect is not prepared to officially announce the nomination, said Obama believes Clinton would bring instant stature and credibility to U.S. diplomatic relations.
So, apparently a senior advisor is leaking the same story to multiple sources. Anti-war activists are expressing frustration that no one who opposed the Iraq war from the start is receiving much consideration for these top cabinet positions, and I share those concerns. However, if the only options the Obama transition team is giving us on foreign policy are people who originally supported the war, then I see no reason why Clinton is any worse than the other potential options.
I will be discussing this, and other Obama transition related topics, on Radio Times today at 10:00 a.m. Check it out.
If Clinton is considered to be Secretary of State, it's going to validate those who argued that there really was not much daylight between the two of them in the primary. She's a relatively hawkish Democrat whose policy decisions under the Bush administration were not good, and they tended to disagree on the role of diplomacy, but their voting records on Iraq were identical. That said, under a Democratic administration, both Clinton and her husband have the ability and credibility to work on the Israeli government and push it towards peace. I'm not up to date on Israeli politics so I don't know how possible this is, but domestically Americans are ready. While I often describe AIPAC as a problematic organization, what its rival J Street has really done is to broaden and diversify what it means to be pro-Israel.
President-elect Barack Obama has interviewed primary election rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson for secretary of state, according to Democratic officials who revealed his secret meetings with both as he weighed the decision on folding former foes into his new administration. Obama met with Richardson late Friday afternoon, a day after conferring one-on-one with Clinton at his Chicago office, said several Democratic officials.
Richardson has already proven his diplomatic mettle in places like Sudan, North Korea and Iraq. Also, it would be great to have a proponent of No Residual Forces in Iraq so high up on the power ladder. So, should Clinton not accept, I think Richardson would be a very good choice.
As far as Clinton goes, while I'm sure she would do a fine job, and while I'm sure some would disagree, right now I would rather return to the question of whether being Secretary of State would help her chances of becoming President in 2016. Yesterday, I wrote that it would, as long as the Obama administration is popular. In response to my assertion, Nate Silver offers "a qualified no," which I will discuss in the extended entry.
President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.
This is a high-risk, high-reward opportunity for Hillary Clinton. If she accepts, and serves out six or eight years in a popular Obama administration, then she is practically guaranteed the Presidency in 2016. Consider that the Secretary of State has been the most popular political figure in the entire nation for about twelve years running now, starting with Albright, then to Powell, then to Rice. It makes sense, since about all Americans see the Secretary of State doing is looking stately while meeting with powerful foreign leaders who suck up to him or her.
However, there is always a chance she will be replaced, or that Obama will not be a popular President. In either of these scenarios, taking the job might make it the last job Hillary Clinton has in politics.
In terms of politics, some progressives are worried that Clinton voted for a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, thus making it difficult for her to hold the job. However, given that the other names most commonly floated are Kerry and Lugar, I fail to see how Clinton is inferior to either option.
Update: I should also add the rumors about Durbin and Kennedy supposedly denying Clinton a leading role on health care reform. If those rumors are true, then Clinton should probably take the job. It is the best leadership position available to her.
Update 2: Some people in the comments are saying they would have preferred Bill Richardson or Wes Clark. Clark would be a great choice, I think. Also, I did cut a television ad for Richardson, he is already proven in dealing with foreign governments, and it would be fantastic to have a proponent of No Residual Forces in Iraq so close to the top. However, I have not heard either Clark or Richardson floated as serious contenders.
Update 3: Some are expressing frustration over such a high profile position for Hillary Clinton, since they supported and worked for Obama in the primaries. All I have to say to that is any belief that defeating Clinton in the primaries would somehow vanquish all Clintonistas from the reigns of power was foolish. Obama's appointments so far are full of Clinton administration officials. It makes sense, since lots of Democrats went to work for Clinton, and if Obama wants people with prior executive branch experience, that is where he has to look. Further, while the party is supposed to come together after the primaries, that doesn't mean one side is supposed to be entirely subservient to the other side.
I don't care about the Clinton vs. Obama battle anymore. I can't even believe some people are still living through it. I care about the progressive vs. centrist struggle, and that is not, and never has been, the same thing as Obama vs. Clinton.
Watching Larry King and he has a panel of two Democrats, two Republicans to analyze various things, and the two Democrats are Paul Begala and Joan Walsh.
Interesting because both of them referred to the fact that they were Hillary supporters and had been critical of Obama to build up their subsequent praise of him in how he had won them over the past month or two.
It made their points more effective I thought, lending them some additional credibility beyond your usual partisan flacks. This is an advantage of having a hotly contested primary I hadn't considered. I don't know if Obama's campaign had anything to do with them appearing on CNN, but if so, it is a smart play.
In the remarkable outpouring of ugly bigotry, a lot of people have finally woken up to the real nature of the Republican Party as a group of sadistic criminally minded yet competently organized citizens. It's important to realize that what is being put on display isn't just racism against Obama, it's a full-on orgy of revulsion towards of anyone who believes in non-authoritarian ideas like equality for women, multiculturalism, or economic justice for all. I happened upon a slew of right-wing email forwards today; the below picture is from a right-wing email titled 'Rudy Giuliani's Push To Save America...'
You might think that this can be excused as just a joke, but that would be foolish. Republicans constantly fantasize about murdering prominent liberals, not just Hillary Clinton but Supreme Court Justices. Their fantasies carry them into ritualized Birth of a Nation-style erotic fear-mongering about black men and white women. This video has over 2M views, and conservatives are emailing it to each other and saying that it is Obama's preacher.
On the flip is an email forward about Obama that ends with the line "The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!"
Given the meltdown in the economy, and the looming presidential debates, treat this as a mental health break, my piece on the primary wars has just been published in Prospect Magazine .
I first joined MYDD in 2004, and was an avid geeky follower of Chris Bowers (in fact I thought he ran the site) but as most of you know the site got a very different reputation during the primary war.
Though it's subbed and simplified for a British publication where the Netroots has to be explained as Blogosphere 101, I you might be interested to read it: in short, through an adversity, it's a paeon to the blogosphere and the possibilities of online advocacy and political campaigning
On Wednesday, September 10, 2008, New York City saw puffy clouds, cool breezes and sunshine that gently bathed the city's tall buildings in crisp golden sunlight. The bike path along the Hudson was filled with cyclists and joggers while on the streets, tourists made their way to places like Times Square or the ferry out to the Statue of Liberty.
Outside towers near Wall Street, office workers took smoking breaks enjoying the hints of autumn while others lunched on benches tossing an occasional crumb to pigeons while traffic whizzed by on the West Side Highway. From an observation deck of an individual life in the city, the island of Manhattan was enjoying a beautiful day.
Still, there is no doubt, countless New Yorkers have been engrossed by the ongoing nonsense gripping the current contest for the land's most important political office a horse race that has recently been punctuated by references to dogs, swine and lipstick.
But with that captivation has come an increasing sense of worry and frustration, as many New Yorkers watch and listen to a political contest that has in many minds descended into a chaotic diversion and not a debate over party ideology, values and solutions.
Here it is, the second week of September and despite a Congressional Budget Office report saying the United States deficit is projected to rise to $407 billion, along with a continued rash of failing financial institutions, the nightmare of misled war in Iraq, a mere treading of water in the land of the Taliban, Afghanistan, despite the fact that 50 million un-insured, a disappearing middle class, the headlines are filled with talk of pitbulls, swine and lipstick, as if some sort of Animal Farm like fever had stolen the meat from the potato's of reality that politics is meant to address.
Even on this day before the anniversary of what is arguably the city's greatest tragedy, a crime of death, destruction and horror, a memory that still blips loudly on the radar screens of so many New Yorkers and Americans everywhere, text messages were being sent and phone calls made among political junkies who call themselves Democrat as they worried aloud that the party values they support were facing increasingly tremendous obstacles come November.
For many, some who call themselves transplants, those who originally come from places far away from the so called sophistication, the bustle and hustle, those who ran away to New York to exist in tolerance and acceptance, an added sense of urgency was setting in as polls showed increasing numbers for the party they held responsible for exploiting pain and tragedy for political gain.
They wondered why, in an election year where the baggage of the past administration would logically derail or simply, perhaps even dramatically sink any remnant of hope for Republicans maintaining control of the executive branch, the Democrats were still failing in their attempts to make victory, perhaps more appropriate, change, a "sure thing" in November
Since the days of September 11, 2001, New York City has moved on. Sure, the memories are still there, the pain, the hurt and the anger, but regardless, the busy lot that New Yorkers are, dictates staying on their toes, and that includes following politics.
In one phone call, a CEO of a small marketing firm downtown said that whomever devised the coronation of Sarah Palin as a running mate for the 25 year veteran of Congress was "simply genius."
He went on to say that they, the Republican strategists, long ago mastered how to get into the psyche of America's heartland.
Just what is that psyche?
In a chapter tilted Persecuted, Powerless and blind from his book "What's the matter with Kansas", author Thomas Frank asserts that in what he calls 'red land' "both workers and their bosses are supposed to be united in disgust with those affected college boys at the next table, prattling on about French cheese and villas in Tuscany and the big ideas for running things that they read in books.
According to the transplant marketing exec in Manhattan, the people described in that book are his family, his family's friends among others outside his current universe are the ones who see the antithesis of those college boys in Sarah Palin and John McCain.
"David Axelrod just got his head handed to him on a silver platter," he yelled into his phone.
Not that the marketing exec is happy about that. Rather, he says, the Democrats, i.e. Obama and his team must rise up, perhaps take a humble pill, and somehow figure out how to "inspire" the reportedly "more than half" of the nation's voters. He, his running mate and his surrogates must figure out a way to re-inject the hope that a better America is somehow attainable through the political process, a poisoned process that they can overcome, if they maintain their sincere message of opportunity for all.
To be fair, the marketing man on the phone was a Hillary supporter during the primary and as of just a few weeks ago, made no denials of his reluctance to grudgingly support the Obama-Biden ticket. But, with the new Alaska superstar stealing the thunder from everyone else in the campaign, he says he realized that his frustration was geared more towards the American people, and perhaps the media for not highlighting the crucial differences in the candidates and what it is they intend to do, or not do, once in power.
Plain and simple, how can Democrats spell out to the people that voting for the Republican candidate would most likely do little to change their lives from the current state it is in now?
Still, during the chat, he said some members of his own mostly politically moderate working class family had been energized by Palin simply because they can identify with her.
"They really don't care about her stand on issues, it's about a person that's like them, not some fancy pants elite politician like Obama," he said.
At that moment in the conversation, thinking back in political time to the Democratic Primaries, one can't help but recall the moment that Senator Hillary Clinton seemed to wake up and embrace the populism espoused by the now "disgraced" John Edwards. It was at that point Clinton appeared to whip her campaign out of an entitled, arrogant state of being and began to aggressively market herself as someone who passionately embraced the populist issues of all the people in a manner that was purely political, but somehow sincere. In the waning days of her campaign, Clinton was able to work that political formula, while guzzling whiskey shots and beer all the way to several victories, but alas, to little to late.
For some reason, despite fact the Senator was indeed a Clinton, people began to believe, that this candidate would wake up every morning and fight for their interests. They saw someone who would seek to bridge the glaring economic inequity that had helped further foster the class divides of the states. Perhaps, they even began to believe that she was sincere.
It is imperative that the Obama campaign figure out its way in doing basically the same, perhaps not a carbon copy repeat of the Clinton awakening but certainly not the sad tit for tat insult show that the campaign has engaged in along with the Republicans. Otherwise, millions of Americans will continue on their quest to choose a candidate they can relate to.
Meanwhile, in New York City, the anniversary of that day that shook modern America to its very foundation, tested its resolve and for a brief shining moment, unified a nation so tightly, will come and go just like every other day.
With things apparently heating up between the U.S. and Russia, we need to be on our guard everywhere, including in the Arctic region, where we are separated from Russia only by the Bering Strait. Our own state of Alaska sits astride that strait, due east of the Big Red Bear. Do we have the kind of leadership in Alaska we need to face down the supposedly reformed Commies, if the situation goes critical? If that red phone rings at 3am, do we have the right people in place to answer the call?
Sadly, the answer to that is, 'apparently not'. Governor Sarah Palin is hiding from the U.S. media. If she is too cowardly to face our lapdog corporate national media, how can we expect her to face Putin and his forces of world domination? For the safety of the nation, not only should she not be a heartbeat from the Presidency, she should be impeached by the state legislature of Alaska for failure to show adequate courage in the face of the threat to Alaska, and our nation.
Please, Senator McCain, do the right thing, and find someone brave enough to take that position of being "one heartbeat from the Presidency", who won't whine about her treatment by our docile media puppies (what, is Gov. Palin afraid of being licked to death?).
You have proudly noted your past record of working with Democrats. Replacing Sarah Palin with the braver and tougher Hillary Clinton would demonstrate both bipartisanship and resolve, and serve as yet another supreme act of patriotism in your long career as a public servant. The applause Senator Clinton received during mention of her name at the Republican National Convention tell me that this would be a winner, and would bring us together as a nation.
Senator McCain, I ask this as a concerned American. Be the patriot you have always been. Remember, Country First!
UPDATE: Hah, Gov. Palin has decided to let a media puppy dog lick her face after all! Charlie Gibson of ABC News gets to do the honors. Steve Benen speculates that internal polling by the McCain camp showed that too many folks had noticed.
Personally, I still think exchanging her for Senator Clinton would send a better message of bipartisanship and Country First!-ism. Wolverines!
UPDATE #2: More on the upcoming interview of Governor Sarah Palin by ABC's Charlie Gibson - this from Josh Marshall:
...it's pretty clear this farce is going to be close to unwatchable. Set aside that this comes just on the heels of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis saying Palin would not sit for any interviews "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference." The tell comes high up in the AP story by David Bauder. The second graf reads ...
Palin will sit down for multiple interviews with Gibson in Alaska over two days, most likely Thursday and Friday, said McCain adviser Mark Salter.
Political interviews are never done like this. Because it makes the questioning entirely at the discretion of the person being interviewed and their handlers. The interviewer has to be on their best behavior, at least until the last of the 'multiple interviews' because otherwise the subsequent sittings just won't happen. For a political journalist to agree to such terms amounts to a form of self-gelding. The only interviews that are done this way are lifestyle and celebrity interviews. And it's pretty clear that that is what this will be.
My guess is that ol' Charlie may stop wagging his tail and licking Gov. Palin's face long enough to ask whether a McCain-Palin Administration will cut his capital gains taxes. Once he gets the answer he wants, he'll resume tail-wagging and face-licking.
Fortunately for Sarah Palin, she's not a Democrat.
I will post on the daily details of the tracking polls later today. However, the short version is that McCain was clearly ahead in Saturday's polling, probably by about 4% in Rasmussen and 6-7% in Gallup. With numbers like that, there can be no doubt that McCain is currently leading in both the national popular vote and in the Electoral College (the Electoral College is not as divergent from the national popular vote as some commenters imply). Before going into the minutia of the numbers, in the extended entry, I list five broad implications for our national politics if McCain were to win.
As I argue in my book coming out in January, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, the history of American politics from 1776 on has been a debate between progressives and conservatives as to what kind of country we want to live in. Progressives have always argued that America should be seen as one people, one family if you will, where our fates rise and fall as one; where we are all equal in the sight of each other and the law, where we should each have an equal opportunity at the good things in life; where the luckier and better off among us give their less lucky fellow citizens a hand up, should be their brothers' and sisters' keepers; where people, all the people not just the elites, are the sovereigns, that we the people have joined together to form a more perfect union where progress is possible, where hope for a better future can overcome the fear of change. Conservatives, of course, have always argued the opposite: that we should look out only for ourselves as rugged individualists; that the powerful are powerful for good reason, and trying to change anything is to be feared.
I am convinced that this coherence and unity in pushing this compelling idea of American progressivism is a big part of what made the Convention such a success. Short-term for our 2008 electoral purposes, it is of course also great that so many speakers, especially including Obama, went hard after McCain and made the case against him effectively. That was essential. But after watching so many Democratic Conventions over the years with no coherent big picture message, messages that were all personal and didn't have an ounce of ideological definition to them (think Dukakis' stirring "I'm a good manager" message, Kerry's "I'm a war hero" message, and a host of others), it was a joy to see a clear definition of who we are, what we value, and what we believe in.
