2008 election

At a Thursday Senate hearing on mobile privacy, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told us how he really feels.

In an exchange with Facebook's Bret Taylor, who was testifying in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, Rockefeller told Taylor he did not believe Facebook CEO and Founder Mark Zuckerberg had consumer privacy in mind when starting the website and company. Why? Well, you see, it's apparently connected to young people's lack of social values. Or at least that's what Rockefeller thinks:

"It's my general feeling that people who are 20, 21, 22 years old really don't have any social values," Rockefeller told Facebook's Bret Taylor, who was testifying at a Senate hearing on mobile privacy Thursday.

"No, it's true," he added after the audience laughed.

No, it's not true.

Is it just me, or is it getting old watching people make decisions about this newfangled technology who either don't get or don't want to accept the paradigm shift that comes along with it?

As Taylor explained in his testimony,

'Facebook is fundamentally about sharing, and adopting overly restrictive policies will prevent our social features from functioning in the way that individuals expect and demand.'

I respect Rockefeller's passion for addressing privacy issues, but passing the "Do Not Track" bill, which would create a "universal legal obligation" for companies to honor users' opt-out requests on the Internet and mobile devices, and would enable the Federal Trade Commission to act against non-compliant companies, carries consequences.

While Facebook has indeed had its share of privacy issues--rolling out and then canceling a controversial data sharing service to advertisers called Beacon, and then developing the News Feed that published each user's activity for their friends to see--the fundamental premise of the site is indeed sharing. That extends to every piece of the Web 2.0 infrastructure. And so, when one takes a hammer and wails away at large problems, like privacy, the effort's not going to be as effective as it could be if she or he took time to understand the peripheral issues. Perhaps Rockefeller, who loves wielding that gavel, could ask one of the 81 people on Facebook who like him (one of them is bound to be young and soulless) what some of those complications might be.

Of course, we know that young people--those who served on his campaign, those who staff his office, those who serve in the military, those undertaking entrepreneurial efforts to raise quality of life, those teaching and serving abroad and at home--do have social values. In fact, all over this site, one can see that if it weren't for the social values of young people, Barack Obama wouldn't be President.

Interestingly, it was only three and a half years ago when Rockefeller disregarded his espoused value of privacy and proceeded to lead the effort to give immunity to those telecommunications companies who warrantlessly spied on Americans. How's that for a flip-flop?

In the end, Rockefeller can fight for the legislation he's championing--even if he doesn't understand the consequences. But to say that young people lack social values when you don't even know what yours are is ridiculous.

The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory

Those of us in the progressive youth movement have been talking about the importance of young voter outreach for a long time now. We tried to drive home the point that young voters are not apathetic, but disengaged due to that self-fulfilling prophecy of traditional campaign 'wisdom.' Youth political organizations kept succeeding, increasing youth turnout in 2004 and 2006. David Plouffe, David Axelrod, and Barack Obama eschewed tradition by deciding from the beginning that organizing young voters to expand the electorate would be the key to victory.

"One of [Paul] Tewes's ideas was to make sure we were working every community, no matter how small. African American, Latino, high school kids, Republicans--we had staff assigned to all of the demographics, months ahead of our competition." The Obama campaign began by working hard to turn out the potential voters that traditional campaigns write off. While critics of the youth vote claim that 2008 was a fluke and just about Obama, it is clear that the campaign worked hard to organize youth that had never been asked for their vote by a campaign. The campaign knew that they "would win Iowa only on the backs of independents, Republicans, young voters, and new registrants--a scary proposition, to say the least."

The campaign was able to look at the election through the lens of a young voter. "At least 95 percent of our six thousand employees were under the age of thirty, most under the age of twenty-five." While it is not uncommon for a lot of campaign staff to be young, what was exceptional about the Obama campaign was the respect for them and the willingness to trust their instincts on what was happening on the ground.

We adjusted accordingly, adding more media and Internet advertising geared exclusively to younger voters; we prepared to do a lot more instructional and informative work with our supporters so they knew how to caucus, while trying not to spook them; and we redoubled our efforts to attract support from conventional caucus Democrats so our newbies in certain precincts were matched with some grizzled veterans.

The campaign invested in "advertising specifically geared toward women, seniors, and younger voters, African Americans and Latinos." The messaging of the youth advertising reflected an understanding of the generation: "spots for those under thirty were very aspirational, a call to action, focusing on issues like Iraq and the environment, and calling on younger voters to get involved in shaping the future." Young voters, used to being ignored, were finally being engaged by a campaign with the same effort and respect showed to seniors.

The Obama campaign conceived of and executed a strategy to expand the electorate by registering and turning out young voters and other traditionally underrepresented demographics. Here are a few passages from The Audacity to Win on how this strategy became a winning one:

As the returns came in we could see the traces of our strategy's design: by registering over one hundred thousand new voters, producing strong turnout among African Americans and young voters, and winning college-educated whites thanks to our stand against the gas tax, we had made ourselves unbeatable in North Carolina.

We registered many thousands of new voters in both states, and these voters participated at high rates, defying the conventional view that new registrants turn out in very low numbers. A strong showing from African Americans and younger voters might put both these states in play in the general election.

If we did not register enough African Americans and young voters in North Carolina and then turn them out on Election Day, we could not win. Facing a traditional electorate meant we shouldn't even bother with a state like North Carolina, no matter how much money we spent.

By focusing their attention on young voters and actually spending resources on research, the campaign learned new things about new and young voters. An example was when their numbers showed that they were not meeting their initial goals for youth early voting:

First, many young voters were so excited by this election that they couldn't envision doing anything besides voting for Barack Obama in person at the polling location. When we raised with them the possibility of long lines, or the potential to free themselves up to volunteer, they simply wouldn't budge. This was a big moment for them and they felt it would seem bigger if they voted at the polls. In any case, they were still dead-set on participating, which relieved us.

The second lesson was that there was still some confusion about who was eligible to vote early and how it worked. Armed with these findings, we made sure our communications to younger voters included even more remedial information about the nuts and bolts of early voting. Soon enough, their numbers began to climb. In many states we lowered our expectations for the under-twenty-five early vote (but not for overall turnout), and we eventually hit those numbers in most battlegrounds.

Republicans have spent a lot of effort in previous campaigns spreading misinformation to young voters about such things as early voting, residency, and registration. By putting in the effort to combat that misinformation, the campaign was able to empower and turn out voters who were unsure of the sometimes complex election laws.

As we now know, this strategy of reaching out to young voters paid off, despite the naysayers from the media and the old school political establishment:

Our base--African Americans, sporadic-voting Democrats, and younger voters--was turning out in larger numbers than McCain's base in most states.

The share of the electorate over sixty-five actually dropped between 2004 and 2008, not because fewer older voters turned out but because younger ones showed up in droves.

Because the Obama campaign was committed to putting effort and resources in registering and turning out young voters, treating them with the same respect as other demographics, they were able to build on the work done by youth organizations since 2000 to culminate with those voters carrying Obama to victory and the presidency. However, culminate may not be the appropriate word. The work in further expanding the electorate by turning out young voters to elect Democrats is far from over. There is more potential for the Millennial generation to not only expand the electorate in an election, but to fundamentally alter the country for the better.

I'll leave you with David Plouffe's words on our generation:

I left the campaign extraordinarily confident about the future of the country, because of the talent and drive of the young men and women who made our victory possible. Certainly, we would not have won the primary or the general without a surging youth turnout in any number of states, Iowa most importantly. But their impact on the election goes beyond casting ballots. Most of our staff was under thirty, many of them were under twenty-five, as were a sizable chunk of our most active volunteers. As I witnessed, sometimes in awe, their performance and desire to look beyond themselves and contribute to a better world (and they have a distinctly global outlook) it gave me extreme comfort to know that in the not so distant future they will be taking the reins and leading our companies, campaigns, and institutions. For my generation, the rocking chair beckons--these kids are that good. I can't wait to experience their leadership and vision in the years to come.

Rachel Hoff of the Weekly Standard posted a gloating piece and was tweeting up a story about her new belief that young voters are now Republicans after the Virginia elections.

"The young people who were the driving force of the Obama campaign stayed home in 2009. Claims that President Obama won a generation of young Americans to the Democratic Party were vastly exaggerated. The power of Obamamania, it seems, was personality politics -- not an actual commitment to the Democratic Party or principles.

Perhaps more amazing and disappointingly under-reported by the media is the fact that 18-29 year olds in Virginia voted for Bob McDonnell over the Democrat 54% to 44%. McDonnell proved that a dynamic candidate with the right ideas, an active youth outreach program, and strategic use of new media technologies, Republican candidates can win the youth vote."

Similarly, Charlie Cook's analysis of Tuesday's election included the following assumption:

"We knew that the young and minority voters who had never cast a ballot before they did for Barack Obama last year were very unlikely to show up at the polls this year or next."

First, while Rachel is right to congratulate McDonnell for his campaign's youth outreach, I hardly think it has anything to do with young voters having gone to the GOP.

Young people prefer progressive ideas, they reject the traditional party structure and tend to identify as more independent. They have much more progressive values. McDonnell's campaign focused on things like infrastructure, energy, and education. He did youth outreach. I don't know if Deeds did, but the consistent narrative around the Deeds campaign was that he wasn't really for anything. The additional narrative I hear is that VA isn't that Democratic.

This doesn't mean young voters have gone GOP, it means that when you put forth the effort to get young voters, you speak to their issues, and you get out the vote you get a good result. Further, when you don't have a strong Democrat at the top of the ticket but you have a strong Republican at the top of the ticket those young Republicans or those young conservative voters turn out. From the numbers I've seen the students at Liberty University could have turned out and made the margin of victory for McDonnell.

To respond to Mr. Cook, I completely understand the misunderstanding. I will say that most of the smartest political operatives know nothing about young voters, its unique to find people who understand how the youth vote works. I know all of the experts and Mr. Cook isn't one of them.

From what I understand about the turnout from the Virginia Election specifically compared to 2009 there was 1/3 of the turnout in 09 compared to 08. Is Mr. Cook really going to say that 2/3 of the Virginia electorate in 2008 was young and minority voters? Really? Come on... In the off season you see a drop off, its normal. When you don't have an inspiring candidate you get an uninspiring result. Sorry Deeds... no offense.

What we saw in 2006 was an uptick in the youth turnout when compared to other midterms. 2004 saw an increase and 2008 even larger than that. If the DCCC and the DSCC wants to see an increase in youth turnout consistent with 2006 they have to work for it. 2006 was a great year that had a consistent message with a Congressional plan that included the needs of the Millennial Generation within its top 10 bills they intended to pass when Democrats won back Congress. If Democrats can continue the same inspiration, provide a reasonable plan for legislation that youth want to see, and do the proper outreach to young people through campaigns you'll get a good turnout.

As Kevin posted Wednesday, amid all of the GOP wins in VA and NJ there were some pretty powerful successes in young elected officials at the municipal level across the country, and some progressive ordinances.

The moral of the story continues to be that young voters will turn out if they are graced with the same outreach as older voters. That is, if you want them to turn out. Progressive candidates can win if they work to engage young voters in their district that connect to progressive issues. As a partisan hack my advice to the other side is to be more conservative and embrace the teabaggers.

"But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health care plan? That is the choice." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Charleston Gazette, 6/25/2009

Sen. Rockefeller's framing of the choice should be instructive for his fellow Democratic senators (whether they listen is surely up in the air).

In a way, the problem Rockefeller speaks of here is the opposite of something we often see among our lawmakers. Usually, lawmakers refuse to cooperate, often turning the process into an ideological battle that holds good policy hostage, resulting in little progress. Unfortunately, since we've gotten control of the Congress in 2006, Democrats are obsessed with making sure the GOP is happy with any legislative victories we might achieve. Yet, Republicans couldn't care less about what Democrats feel. So we face a different outcome, though still frustrating -- policy IS passed, but it's nothing but mush, or Republican-lite.

Here we are, debating health care, faced with yet another opportunity to pass critical and historic legislation, this time with a Democratic president in the White House, and too many Democrats are afraid of hurting the Republicans' feelings.

Repeat after me: PARTISANSHIP IS NOT A BAD THING. Yes, the arguing and ideological tactics can produce a toxic political process. But just as well, empty legislation can produce toxic policy, still leaving millions of Americans without health insurance, while handing the GOP a bone. The fact remains that Democrats have nearly 60 percent of the seats in both chambers, having won the majority of congressional races in 2008 despite the Republicans' frequent attempts at linking the party and its presidential candidate with socialism. The presidential candidate ran on "change" and won. People want to see something different.

What's more, the American people in poll after poll trust the Democrats to handle nearly all issues, with health care being one of the issues the public trusts Democrats with the most. A large Washington Post poll released this week produces similar results, though the poll pits Obama against the Congressional Republicans instead of both parties. Obama won big. Borrowing from Greg Sargent's post on the Post's poll at The Plum Line:

• On health care, 51% of indys trust Obama, and 26% trust GOPers in Congress.
• On the economy, 51% of indys trust Obama, and 31% trust the GOP.
• On the budget deficit, 52% of indys trust Obama, and 30% trust the GOP.

Even though Barack Obama is on record as supporting a public option as a part of health reform, the majority of independent voters still support him -- twice as many than the number supporting Republicans.

Youth are relying on the Democratic Party to produce some results after supporting them by a 2-1 ratio in 2008. We're waiting for good policy (read - health reform WITH a public option) that's passed and signed into law because we WANT and NEED it to be passed, not because we want to make sure the Republicans aren't mad and don't hold a grudge.

If the GOP wants to work with Democrats in good faith, fine. If not, Democrats have marching orders from Americans. And they don't include kissing the feet of the GOP.

Yesterday CIRCLE released their analysis of the 2008 Census Data, and they have revised their estimates on youth vote turnout. Here's the toplines:

• Overall youth turnout (18 - 29) was revised from an estimated 52 - 53% (based on exit polling data) down to 51.1%. This is still the third highest youth turnout since 18 year-olds were granted the right to vote:

• 22.4 million young Americans voted in November, 2 million more than in 2004.
• Turnout increase 2 percentage points over the 2004 turnout (49%) and 11 points over 2000 turnout levels (40%). It's also worth noting that young voters were the only age demographic to increase their turnout over 2004 levels.
• Turnout among young African Americans was the highest since 1972. 58.2% of young African Americans voted - the highest turnout for any racial/ethnic demographic since 1972.

• Finally, unlike every other state, youth turnout was higher in DC than turnout among voters over 30.

That's the good news, but it wasn't all roses. While the overall youth vote is continuing to trend towards higher and higher rates of participation, that participation is not evenly distributed throughout the youth population. Huge disparities in turnout still exist - particularly when it comes to educational attainment.

• Voter turnout among young people without college experience was at only 36% compared to 62% for those with some college experience.
• The turnout gap between men and women continued to widen in 2008. 54.9% of young women voted in November, compared to just 47.2% of young men.

So good news overall, but still a ways to go in some areas. We need to work on closing the gender and educational gaps in voter turnout, as well as work on increasing down-ballot participation. Part of that is voter registration reform, and part of it needs to be a greater commitment of resources towards registering and GOTVing these demographics.

Here's a video wrap-up from UMass Amherst's YouTube and the 2008 Election Cycle in the United States, an interdisciplinary conference of academia exploring technology, scholarly work, and politics. The conference was held April 16th and April 17th.

In a report released yesterday by Women's Voices Women Vote (pdf) evidence of continued voting problems are particularly high among women.

According to a report on the... report in the Chicago Sun Times

"While the study discusses obstacles to voter participation in general, it focuses on the unique impact it has on traditionally under-represented groups who comprise the majority (52%) of the population -- African Americans, Latinos, unmarried women and young voters -- it is unmarried women who drive this majority and the mission of Women's Voices Women Vote."

I would say it amazes me, but I'm not the least bit shocked. Particularly, since Oklahoma's Legislature which had promised to allow previsions for students to vote with their ID's, passed a bill that will go to a vote of the people to vote provisional ballot if they don't have an ID or voter card.

Anything to reduce the power of that 52% right?

As TWW accurately says "If women were the only voters, the Democrats would win in a landslide every time. If men were the only voters, the GOP would be the left-wing party." But I digress.

This 2008 Brennan Center map below also illustrates the state variations related to identification needed to vote:

(click to make larger)

"Moreover, because of unclear and complicated rules in states and counties regarding who receives a provisional ballot, some voters who should get provisional ballots are turned away from the polls and others who qualify for a regular ballot are given provisional ballots."

The report goes on to say that in 2004 the top five problems at the polls had to do with provisional ballots. Not just the highest problem... but the top five. Fer realz.

Mike reported almost two years ago about unmarried single women and the important role they would play in the 2008 election. What WVWV found recently was that not only were they key players, they are also an ever increasing demographic.

"Unmarried women are the fastest growing large demographic in the population, comprising 25% of the voting age population," said Page Gardner, president and founder of WVWV. . . "Challenges that affect unmarried women most particularly, include greater mobility and access to less economic resources -- they have the highest poverty rate of any cross-section of the adult population," said Gardner. "Yet it is exactly this portion of the population for whom we make voter registration most difficult in this country."

The study also makes great mention of Election Day Registration (aka Same Day Registration) saying that in areas that have it there was a indeed a higher turnout - but further those areas lead in the highest turnout areas in the country.

In a report (pdf) from our good friends over at Demos, EDR has increased turnout as much as 10% in some areas and the administrative costs for EDR are often times lower than the non-EDR states.

Finally, the WVWV data outlines "the the most significant obstacles to voter participation."

1. "Voter Registration: controversies over voter registration produced more litigation than any other election issue in 2008, primarily due to outdated and problematic voter registration systems. By allowing reforms such as universal registration and greater uniformity of registration standards, many registration issues could be resolved. (emphasis mine)
2. Absentee and Early Voting: the rate of voters casting ballots via absentee or early voting methods is on the rise (38 million Americans in 2008). However, the rules surrounding these methods vary significantly from state to state. . .
3. Voter Identification Requirements: lack of consistency across state lines in relation to the types of ID required (e.g., driver's license, proof of citizenship) as well as whether ID is required at all, make it confusing and cumbersome to register and/or cast a ballot.
4. Provisional Ballots: among the top five complaints logged by the Election Protection Coalition's hotline during the 2004 election were problems with provisional ballots. . .
5. Voter Lists: state regulations are notably inconsistent when it comes to the maintenance of voter registration lists -- from who updates them to how the state maintains them, whether state or local election officials allow for name variations, and how and when the lists are purged."

At 10am EDT this morning, Future Majority ally Matthew Segal of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment will be testifying for the second time in the House Judiciary. I would suggest checking out CSPAN but I'm not sure if they're covering the hearing. You can also check out the Committee website for viewing possibilities.

Below is an excerpt of the entered testimony that Segal will be submitting. Hopefully we can obtain video if it isn't readily available online and repost it for you here.

"As several journalists coined it, 2008 was the “Year of the Youth Vote.” For the third consecutive presidential election, young voter participation (among 18-29 year olds) increased considerably, with over 23 million young Americans—or 52% of all eligible young voters—casting ballots. This was also a 12% increase in young voter participation since the 2000 presidential election. Beyond just statistics, young people provided unprecedented energy, spirit and volunteer service to political campaigns, which was instrumental in shattering the conventional wisdom that “young people don’t vote” or “don’t want to vote.” Yet notwithstanding these clear successes, a closer examination of the 2008 election demonstrates that young voters succeeded in spite of numerous barriers, not necessarily because the system worked efficiently. The problems of the 2008 election begin with voter registration:

First, there were several instances of misleading statements made by elected officials regarding the potential consequences for out-of-town college students who wished to register and vote within their campus communities. At jurisdictions including Virginia Tech and Colorado College, for instance, county clerks issued statements indicating that if students chose to register at school, then their parents could no longer claim them as dependents for tax purposes. The registrars also cautioned that students could lose scholarships, grant money, and health insurance. And since these false claims originated
with election officials, disputing their accuracy was particularly difficult. It was not until civil rights attorneys sued and the IRS declared such claims inaccurate that these registrars issued corrections to their student populations.

Second, students attempting to register at Jackson State University in Mississippi,Furman University in South Carolina, and both Radford University and Mary Washington College in Virginia, were repeatedly denied registration status because they listed a dormitory room as their address. This dilemma was (and is) the result of vague definitions of domicile, which registrars may interpret subjectively to include or exclude dormitories. With such different styles of housing (whether a dorm, an apartment, a home, a public assistance agency, etc.), there is room for potential malfeasance or confusion in granting residency to eligible citizens.

Third, voter caging resulted in the removal of young people from the voter rolls. A prominent example of voter caging, which specifically targeted students, occurred in Montana. Republican Party officials intended to use “change of address” forms to remove voters from the registration rolls despite the fact that students routinely use such forms to forward mail during temporary absences. Certainly, a temporary leave of absence does not constitute a legitimate reason for removing a potential voter from the rolls; and after several groups, including SAVE, brought significant public pressure against party officials, the voter-caging plan was abandoned. Had the voter caging continued unchecked, thousands of young voters could have been removed from the registration lists without their knowledge and left with little recourse.

These examples demonstrate the symptoms of a greater problem: the voter registration process is flawed. In addition to the problems I cited previously, election officials are often overwhelmed by an influx of voter registration forms immediately prior to the deadline. As a result, officials are swamped and hard pressed to sort through hundreds, if not thousands, of forms in a matter of days, which often results in delays. Delays in the registration process decrease voter confidence, lead to uncertainty, and open the door to mistakes. . ."

To read the entire testimony please view it here - it should be posted later this afternoon or tomorrow.

A profound post by Matt Compton at Democratic Strategist questions whether the Presidential Records Act that Congress passed in 1978 is applicable in today's internet-based office environment.

Email had been invented seven years earlier in a project funded by the Department of Defense, but it's hard to imagine that the authors of the Presidential Records Act could have foreseen a government which put instant, electronic communication into widespread use. To ask anyone at the time to imagine the sprawling, interconnected world of the Internet as it is today would have been laughable.

And yet this 1978 law still dictates how the executive branch does business.

During the election, the Obama campaign was deeply immersed in the world of the Internet, and we've spent a lot of time talking about the brilliance of the external online strategy. But much less has been made of how well Obama for America as an organization used the Web internally.

Staffers used online tools to share documents, built wikis to train volunteers, used Facebook to build get to know each other. And throughout it all, the staff -- from David Axlerod on down -- maintained a continuous conversation through instant messenger.

It now looks, however, like that practice will be put to an end.

Citing both the requirements of the Presidential Records Act and security concerns, lawyers for the incoming administration have told staffers that they will not be able to use instant messenger in the White House. They will forgo the use of an official Facebook account as a tool to communicate with supporters. They won't be allowed to bring in USB drives to take work home. Access to many websites will be restricted. And in many cases, the computers at their desks will be dated and running old Windows software.

While cybersafety and national security are heavy issues in this debate, isn't a lack of creativity and transparency a threat as well? As we move into the 21st Century in an unenviable position, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to do things the best that we can? I don't think "the best" involves blocking websites and limiting the White House's access to outside sources and opinions. Certainly, we can't have a White House haphazardly wading into cyberspace, but, as Compton notes, the NSA and other agencies worked on his Blackberry to make it secure. We should be doing the same with the online presence in the White House.

The full text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address:

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.