young people

What did you all think about last night's debate? I thought McCain looked like a beached squid. His answers were incoherent talking points that barely addressed the questions, his attacks fell flat and seemed just plain mean and calculating, and the man had zero control over his facial expressions. That split screen was brutal and I'm sure we'll see a repeat performance this Saturday on SNL.

I thought the highlight of the debate (from a youth perspective) came at the very end, when Obama said the quote I used as the title of this post:

And I also have to disagree on Sen. McCain's record when it comes to college accessibility and affordability.

Recently his key economic adviser was asked about why he didn't seem to have some specific programs to help young people go to college and the response was, well, you know, we can't give money to every interest group that comes along.

I don't think America's youth are interest groups, I think they're our future.

Youth may not be an interest group, but we are a constituency. As such, I thought this debate did a much better job than the last in including us in the discussion - particularly on the issue of education, which got a lot of play last night.

In a search of the transcript, I found 14 instances in which the candidates mentioned young people or directly addressed an issue through a "youth" frame. This was compared to only 6 instances in the previous debate. Both candidates each made a mention of youth 7 times, but I found Obama's answers to be much more substantive, particularly around the need for more education. Listening to Obama, I got a picture of youth as a group of enormous potential that needs more of a leg up to reach that potential. His references to youth were couched in terms like "investment." By contrast, McCain's mentions of youth seemed to portray us as victims - of the drug war, of a culture of obesity, of the mean media, of failing schools. McCain's was a much more pessimistic vision of our country, and young people's place in that country in 2008.

What did you think?

For another youthful take on last nights' final debate, check out The Caucus, where 10 - 15 college newspaper editors live-blogged the discussion.

You can read a listing of all the quotes I pulled out of the transcript after the jump.

One thing that stuck out to me in last night's debate is the refrain of "just doesn't understand" that McCain kept using on Obama. Clearly a premeditated line, I question its effectiveness.

First -- poll numbers from last night show it clearly didn't work. From the CNN poll, thanks to TPM:

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:

• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%

• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%

• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%

• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%

• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%

• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%

• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32%

The last one is the most important here. This thirty point spread indicating Obama is the candidate that is more in touch with needs and problems is political gold, especially when its in the face of McCain's repeated declarations that the Democrat doesn't understand. Not only did the last point bear out the ineffectiveness of this strategy, but so did the leadership question. McCain's "not ready to lead" theme may have been disproven by Obama's threshold performance -- clearly the leadership people gleaned from the debate didn't scare anyone. But, of course, we can expect the McCain campaign to bring up the fact that Obama is a master wordsmith and point out we shouldn't have expected anything different.

Second, for someone that doesn't understand, Obama's body language was superior. The senator was mostly looking into the camera, speaking directly to the viewers at home. And when he wasn't doing that, he turned to look directly at his opponent. McCain, meanwhile, was looking anywhere but Obama's eyes and the camera. He was acting like the event was not televised, looking out at the crowd for most of the debate. Not only that, but TPM had some readers well-versed in psychotherapy and psychology write in with their own analysis of McCain's inability to look at his opponent for any amount of time. Quite interesting:

As a psychotherapist and someone who treats people with anger management problems, we typically try to educate people that anger is often an emotion that masks other emotions. I think it's significant that McCain didn't make much, if any, eye contact because it suggests one of two things to me; he doesn't want to make eye contact because he is prone to losing control of his emotions if he deals directly with the other person, or, his anger masks fear and the eye contact may increase or substantiate the fear.

I noticed him doing the same thing in the Republican primary debates. The perception observers are likely to have is that he is unwilling to acknowledge the opponent's legitimacy and/or is contemptuous of the opponent.

Afraid of Obama?

I think people really are missing the point about McCain's failure to look at Obama. McCain was afraid of Obama. It was really clear--look at how much McCain blinked in the first half hour. I study monkey behavior--low ranking monkeys don't look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that.

Obama demonstrated that he did understand the issues, especially when he was asked to name legislative priorities for his presidency, even with the financial crisis tying his hands. Obama talked about healthcare, the energy issue, and the economy; McCain talked about minutae in defense spending? This is about 7:22 in. (Apologies for using Faux News's recording -- it was what I could find in a short amount of time.)

Finally, I know I've discussed this repeatedly in the past, but I keep going back to what Millennials and young voters would think. How often do you think these serious young activists, trying to get a seat at the table and be taken seriously, are told "you just don't understand?" Keeping that in mind, it's even less difficult to see why McCain just wouldn't appeal to young voters who seek to work within the system to create change.

Yes, young voters that seek to act as change agents within organizations might be predisposed to support Senator Obama anyway; but with these comments, McCain doesn't give his campaign any chance to be seen as a credible alternative to a young voter who doesn't quite agree with Obama.

Yes, young voters are just as diverse (and maybe even more so) as the rest of the electorate and so to make generalizations can be dangerous. But being a young voter myself, and having surrounded myself with young voters both at my place of employment and in my own social life, I notice that while we're by and large not a big proponent of civil disobedience, we're still headstrong and stubborn. We don't like to be told by our elders that we can't do things or that we're too naive to understand issues. And so it's not a huge stretch to assume that McCain's patronizing tactic didn't play well with young voters.

All in all, I thought the debate was a tie. Both candidates had a few good moments. But the fact that it was a tie on the scorecard actually favors Obama in the grand scheme of things. He didn't make any mistakes, he came off looking in touch with America and as a credible leader, and he held his own against John McCain on a subject that is supposed to be McCain's strong suit.

What did you think?

(I've been thinking a lot of values lately - namely, what it means to say you're in favor of "American Values." And I'm not alone - her disastrous media mystery tour notwithstanding, much of the right-wing noise machine's pro-Palin talking points in the last few weeks is predicated on her sharing "our values." And she showed her values alright, values that apparently include disparaging diplomacy and offering a talking-points explosion while feigning empathy for working people.

And then, there was the 2008 Values Voter Summit, where said voters got to express their deep values by buying "Obama Waffles" replete with a classically racist caricature of the Senator.

These are values, alright - deeply regressive, hateful, reactionary values, but values nonetheless. But just because they *have* values doesn't make them the only type of value voters. Our summer intern, Seth Pearce, just left for his first semester of college, but before doing so got to come with us to the Democratic National Convention, where he got to record a commentary for the Tavis Smiley Show on why he's a true values voter for Obama. I've inluded the entirety of Seth's wonderful piece below - just some food for thought before tonight's debate, now that it's actually happening.)

Too often, people assume that first time voter means the same thing as ignorant voter. This is just not true. Young people care about this election like never before because we know that the biggest impact of this contest will be the impact on our lives. In fact, here in Denver at the Democratic Convention, young people represent 16% of all convention participants, all of whom are here because they care about the future of our country.

Politics plays a role in almost every aspect of our lives. My friends and coworkers at Living Liberally, a national network of over 280 social communities built around progressive politics, are fond of saying that politics isn't something that should be confined to one November day every four years. Nor should it be trapped in linoleum-floored fluorescent lit rooms. It should an active part of the places we socialize, live and learn: our cafes and classrooms, comedy clubs and book clubs and even our prayer communities.

I am a first time voter and I assure you I will not cast my vote based on ignorance or empty rhetoric. I will cast my vote based on my values.

Like millions of other Americans I am a person of faith, and my faith, my core values undoubtedly inspire my political views. I aspire to serve God and love my neighbor to the best of my abilities. I view the issues through this religious and moral lens.

A core part of Judaism, my faith, is Tikkun Olam, the act of repairing the world, curbing the forces that divide us and uniting all people for common good. I want a President who has a plan to repair our Nation and our World.

I want a President who won't spend four more years uniting our enemies and dividing our friends: one who will strengthen our international alliances and use our military responsibly and effectively. Under our last President, terrorist groups around the world grew in size and reach, and extremism took hold in many more world communities. This is a major threat to our national security and our generation knows this. If we continue with these faulty foreign policies, our generation will have to deal with a whole new level of extremism and hate around the world. We need a President who will unite the world against the common threat of terrorism and violent extremism.

I want a President who will establish universal healthcare, not only because it is politically popular, but also because as Americans and as human beings it is our moral obligation to take care of each other. It is a disgrace to our Country and to our moral stature, when people suffer from preventable illnesses and lives are lost even though in our great nation the treatment they need is available.

In the same vein, it is our duty to care for the "least of these" in our community, and for this I want a President who has a plan to reduce poverty and to work towards human dignity for all. One who will create jobs and do that great American task of helping those in need help themselves.

My generation is starting to feel the beginning global warming, a crisis that threatens God's creation that we are morally bound to protect. I want a President who will fight global warming and encourage Americans in the spirit of service and patriotic duty to do their part in tackling this potential catastrophe.

Finally, I want a President who will fight for equality and recognize that all people are made in God's image. Because my conscience cannot stand it when our gay brothers and sisters, who were also created in the divine image, are told that they must remain "separate but equal."

My name is Seth Pearce. I am a first time voter. I am a values voter. I am eighteen years old, and I support Barack Obama.

Bumped. -- Craig

Crossposted at Young People For

On occasion, my friends and I tune in to Fox News to hear the latest attacks from right-wing conservatives. One of my rather opinionated friends commented on how "frightening" and "awkward" these Fox commentators appeared. It was as though they were unknowingly disturbed by the inaccuracy of their reports. In contrast, as I reflected on my experience thus far with the progressive movement, most recently with Young People For, I thought that my friend's words were not all fitting for the fellow activists I've met through my social justice work; in fact, the face of the progressive movement is quite attractive.

As noted in my previous blog, I am currently participating in Young People For's (YP4) Leadership Academy with 20 other fellows. Prior to my involvement with YP4, I was already engaged in numerous student-led and youth development programs. As an undergraduate, I was fortunate enough to obtain seed money from Cal Corps at UC Berkeley to start South of Market (SoMa) Scholars Mentorship Program, a one-on-one mentorship program whose mission is to provide academic and social support for low-income adolescents of color in the Bay Area. However, my experience in student/social activism, as rewarding as it is, also has its share of shortcomings. While some funding has been provided for student-led programs, there has been little investment made in the leadership development, both the professional and personal aspects, of the young activists who are at the forefront of this organizations.

Here comes the Young People For Leadership Academy.

I knew I was set on integrating my passion for social justice and empowering disadvantaged communities with my interest in health and medicine. Nevertheless, I still had personal concerns. How would I balance my personal and professional life? Would I be able to fulfill my responsibilities as a wife and mother while continuing to actively advocate for the medically underserved? How?

Through my experience in the YP4 Leadership Academy thus far, I have been able to explore these questions, and then some. I have met other young progressive leaders who have the same concerns. I have been connected and placed with The Greenlining Institute, a multi-ethnic research and policy advocacy organization, through which I have developed relationships with older professionals who have successfully balanced their personal responsibilities with their social activism. Thus, in the process of nurturing and creating a healthier world, I have accepted that it's okay, even necessary, to take care of my own needs. No need to let myself go-- I can help keep the progressive movement sexy.

Sorry for lateness, as My Sunday Thing has slid this week into My Monday Thing and quite nearly Tuesday. Such is a life of casual brutality and 400-level classes deconstructing post-colonial literature. How about that for a pretentious opening? You’re all but required to read the rest to see if I recover.

This is also kind of a discussion piece on blogging, youth demographics, and bringing more people into the online process. For those looking for my usual content, “John McCain is old and crazy, Rudy Giuliani is a white supremacist, and the system is corrupt and must be skull fucked to death.” Neat.

Anyway, one of those things that have been eating at me has been something along these lines: this blog as a concept is supposed to serve as a rally point for youth political operatives looking to ferment serious change in their environments. It is a belief that the infrastructure being built, (democratized, low cost, and with the ability to reach mass audiences) will almost certainly lend itself to the 18-30 set that’s all but grown up anchored in the ins and outs of digital communication.

That attempt at appeal to youth, oddly enough, is completely at odds with the present system. The system, as it stands, is run for boomers.

The picture Bowers paints in his post regarding BlogAds demographic numbers is of a hyper politicized group of people in their late forties, brimming with excess wealth and massive educations just looking to crack some online political skulls. And this bears out in the reading; the content, tone, use of language, all tailors almost exclusively to a true believer, aging audience who want only to take the fight to the Rethuglicans and the Bush Crime Family and KKKarl Rove. The sense of humor is circa 1974, and I don’t mind being quoted that I can find four sharp objects sitting on the desk in front of me that I’d rather drive into my skull right now than read the daily “Cheers and Jeers” post at DailyKos.

The exception to this Boomer-run phenomenon, interestingly, is Wonkette.