President Barack Obama delivered a speech yesterday citing depressing numbers about employment in the US but promising hope through innovation, green technologies, and assuring Americans that each was upon the horizon.

"The job figures released this morning show that we lost 467,000 jobs last month. And while the average loss of about 4,000 jobs (sic) per month this quarter is less devastating than the 700,000 per month that we lost in the previous quarter, and while there are continuing signs that the recession is slowing, obviously this is little comfort to all those Americans who have lost their jobs. . .

"I'm absolutely confident that we can, at this period of difficulty, prove, once again, what this nation can achieve, when challenged. And I'm confident that we're not only going to recover from this recession in the short term, but we're going to prosper in the long term."

Obama spoke about the importance of the Energy Bill passed in the house, saying it was a major step forward for progress. I would argue it was a limp and sluggish step forward because each step was made difficult by those being dragged along behind them. But indeed... forward.

He also spoke of the need for CEOs, small businesses, and companies to opt for innovation that develops not merely our economy but our work force while launching our country into the 21st century. If there is one thing the US has not been keen on the past few years its innovation, and Obama's urgency to develop technologies and cutting edge businesses is a noble task we should all shoulder.

"You know, so much of the debate around health care, so much of the debate around energy has been based on this idea that somehow if we stand still and we don't do anything that we're going to be better off. And that's just not how this world works. It's certainly not how the modern economy works.

We know we're going to have to change how we use energy. We know we're going to have to change how we operate our health care system. We know that we're going to have to change how we train our young people to compete in this new global economy.

And so to make the argument that somehow we should just lock in on the status quo or perpetuate the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place and that's somehow going to solve our problems just doesn't make any sense.

And what these folks are all about is the future."

I'm excited the President understands that training is an important part of what our generation will require, but I think beyond skill training young people can be on the front lines of the very innovation the President is calling for. Like Google, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and more developing each day - young people are creating the super companies of the future that are not merely youth created but youth run by their youth employees. The old companies who continue to ignore the call for modernization are seemingly the companies faltering in innovation.

These topics and more are the major reason we are working to create a wonderful conference in the next few weeks with 80 Million Strong. Youth have a key role to play in our country's progress and the future the President speaks of. New speakers are signing on each day to attend and as a co-sponsor, FM will bring you all the details of the event.

What is it with Thomas Friedman and his insults? First, he wrote that Millennials were too quiet, too wrapped up in the internet to care about the country's direction. He then came back last December and tried to argue again that because we're not chaining ourselves to bulldozers, we're not doing anything and thus don't care about the trajectory of the country.

Yesterday, Friedman again assailed millennials, equating Facebook and other social network sites with laziness and apathy. The offending passage is in the last paragraph:

And then there is We the People. Attention all young Americans: your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway. You want to make a difference? Then get out of Facebook and into somebody’s face. Get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon. That will get the Senate’s attention. Play hardball or don’t play at all.

Emphasis added.

The Energy Action Coalition pieced together a response it blasted to its e-mail list. I've provided it below:

As a young person, you care about global warming. You know that a clean energy economy will create millions of jobs and pathways out of poverty, reduce pollution, and save the planet. And you are willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen. Right?

Well, Thomas L. Friedman, the popular New York Times columnist, isn't convinced. In fact, Friedman concludes his latest column* by calling us out! He writes:

"Attention all young Americans: your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway…. Play hardball or don't play at all."

Does Friedman have a point? Do we need to be bigger and louder?

I think the answer is yes.

Don't get me wrong -- I know that thousands of young people across this country are working tirelessly to usher in a clean and just energy future for us all. But if we want to truly achieve our goals, we need our elected officials to know that we are watching closely as they debate the climate policy that will shape the rest of our lives.

Take the first step. Let President Obama and your Senators know that you demand bold, just, and science-based climate solutions, and ask your friends and family to do the same.

Let's send a strong message to our President and Senators that we're here, we're watching, and we're ready for action. And let's ask our friends and families to do the same. It's going to take big numbers to fight back against the thousands of letters and calls generated by the dirty energy industry (not to mention their well-paid lobbyists).

Send a message to the President and your Senators, and forward this email to everyone you know.

But we know that sending email isn't enough. In order to drown out the voice of the dirty energy industry, we're going to need to mobilize in unprecedented numbers. Tom Friedman isn't kidding when he suggests we should have a million people marching in the streets.

Ready to take a bigger step? Sign up to be a leader in your community, and to help get millions of feet in the streets for climate solutions.

We've gone big before, but now we need to go bigger. And the only way we will get there is if people like you do more. Ready to take a bigger step? Sign up today to get active in your community, to get in the faces of our elected officials, and to recruit the huge movement it will take to win.

In it to win it,

Whit Jones
Acting Field Director
Energy Action Coalition

While the e-mail was inspirational enough, the problem with Friedman's column is that he once again lacks the understanding that change can be accomplished through a variety of means. Friedman (and there are many more who think just like him) discounts activism through institutions as nothing. In doing so, he insults those youth already busting their ass for this legislation and movement. For instance did Friedman say anything when Powershift '09 brought 11,000 youth activists to DC urging the government to act? Who was quiet then?

Granted, Whit's right -- we all can be a little louder on the issue, but it doesn't have to be limited to getting in the streets. We can continue our own brand of activism by using our technological proficiency and collaborative skills to push for the bill's passage. Yes, the bill's important (even if it has been watered down); but the 1960s are over. Youth have a plethora of tools at their disposal to create the change they wish to see. Unfortunately, Friedman either doesn't understand that, or doesn't want to.

• The Politics Of Social Networks And Keeping The Youth Vote Plugged In.
• In the UK, Gordon Brown pledges £1bn on jobs for young.
• Neda, Obama and the Power of Pictures.
• Thomas Friedman (again) smacks down youth climate organizers with baseless claims.
• Aspiring Lawyer Finds Debt is Bigger Hurdle Than Bar Exam: Check out the craziest student debt story you will EVER read.

Passing along an invitation... Two things. I've collaborated with the National Conference on Citizenship through my work with CIRCLE. Also, I totally know David Smith and am grateful for his leadership in the area of civic engagement. - Karlo

2009 National Conference on Citizenship

Sustainable Impact: A Civic Return on Investment

Registration is open for the 2009 National Conference on Citizenship, being held September 9 at the Library of Congress.

Themed Sustainable Impact: A Civic Return on Investment, the conference will explore ways public engagement can lift us out of the tough times our country is facing by challenge the ways ROI is evaluated. NCoC feels it is important to encourage commitment to civic responsibility not only through dollars, but actions, collaborations, and economic decisions.

• Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will give the keynote
• To release the 2009 America’s Civic Health Index and discuss the impact of the economic crisis on the civic health of states, we will be joined by former Florida Senator Bob Graham and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie
• A preview of the new Ken Burns PBS documentary “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea” will showcase the role of public lands in helping citizens realize the full meaning of democracy
• For the second year, Chief Judge Royce Lamberth will perform a naturalization ceremony welcoming America’s newest citizens

The National Conference on Citizenship is an annual event that focuses on the state of civic engagement in America, and is designed to bring together civic leaders, educators, CEOs, and representatives from each of the three branches of government to address issues related to our nation’s civic health. Visit http://ncoc.net/conference to register.

Promoted by Sarah

I've been doing some thinking on the role of a University. Our conception of what it should be is very different from what it is in reality. Professor Michael Wesch, a Cultural Anthropologist at Kansas State University put it very nicely a while ago:

Some time ago we started taking our walls too seriously – not just the walls of our classrooms, but also the metaphorical walls that we have constructed around our “subjects,” “disciplines,” and “courses.” McLuhan’s statement about the bewildered child confronting “the education establishment where information is scarce but ordered and structured by fragmented, classified patterns, subjects, and schedules” still holds true in most classrooms today. The walls have become so prominent that they are even reflected in our language, so that today there is something called “the real world” which is foreign and set apart from our schools. When somebody asks a question that seems irrelevant to this real world, we say that it is “merely academic.”

Not surprisingly, our students struggle to find meaning and significance inside these walls. They tune out of class, and log on to Facebook.

A true University should embrace learning, not teaching. A true University should view knowledge as a journey, not a scarce parcel. A true University should build a culture of the possibly of discovery through discussion at all times of day and night.

Instead we fidget in our chairs for three hours a day, spend hours dumbly thumbing through books in the library, and spend the rest of our time in a whirlwind of activity, trying to keep up with mounting piles of work, but also plunging headfirst into the elaborate civil society we've created to bring meaning, purpose, wholesomeness to fill the emptiness in our lives that our classes carve out.

Mr. Arne Duncan, tear down this wall.

What is a University? What should it be? I'm not asking you to describe your own college or similar institutions. Instead, what are the aspirations, hopes, contradictions, negations, paradoxes, stereotypes and associations with this concept? A University is not a college, the beer-soaked playground of the idle bourgeois, one long sex romp for the future staid suits of tomorrow. (In reality, perhaps it is, but we have entered the land of myths and symbolism).

I close my eyes and let my mind wander. The word University evokes vague echoes of Plato's academy, no? A grass and marble oasis of idyll, with students, their features wavering between long-bearded be-toga'd elders and excitable, sandy-haired fast-talking youngsters. These students might be tweed-jacketed, their brows furrowed too deeply for those so young, opening tomes in a rich velvet tomb of a room. Perhaps two women are striding to some unknown destination, the Pakistani explaining her understanding of the intricacies of physics to her Kansas friend. A rich tableau of images bubble and dissolve in a warm bath of emotions in the mind. Timelessness, Pursuit of Knowledge, Camaraderie, Dedication, Wholesomeness. All these concepts rush past my mind and double back to make sure they left their mark.

And yet, something is missing, is it not? Where are the professors? Where are these Socratic guides in this journey of intellectual discovery? A holistic concept of the University is intricately tied with those modern-day sages. They could be sitting down in a circle on a lawn with their students, leading them on a nature hike, arranging tours to local institutions of interests. They could be narrating the story of how a train stays on its tracks, or the first time they took a girl to a dance, while sharing a barbecue'd kebab with their pupils.

A true University should embrace learning, not teaching. A true University should view knowledge as a journey, not a scarce parcel. A true University should build a culture of the possibly of discovery through discussion at all times of day and night.

The "modern" University observes an archaic ritual, barely changed since those times when books were scarce and princes and monks paid to have a scholar read one aloud for hours a day. Michael Wesch, cultural anthropologist, explains the classroom:

I arrived early, finding 493 empty numbered chairs sitting mindlessly fixated on the front of the room. A 600 square foot screen stared back at them. Hundreds of students would soon fill the chairs, but the carefully designed sound-absorbing walls and ceiling, along with state of the art embedded speakers, ensured that there would only be one person in this room to be heard. That person would be me, pacing around somewhere near stage-left, ducking intermittently behind a small podium housing a computer with a wireless gyromouse that will grant me control of some 786,432 points of light on that massive screen.

The room is nothing less than a state of the art information dump, a physical manifestation of the all too pervasive yet narrow and naïve assumption that to learn is simply to acquire information, built for teachers to effectively carry out the relatively simple task of conveying information. Its sheer size, layout, and technology are testaments to the efficiency and expediency with which we can now provide students with their required credit hours.

Professor Wesch had his students produce a video on their experiences in the classroom:

It is strange, it is not? This take on a University is very different than the collective assumptions, stereotypes, and aspirations we have for what it could be. Perhaps this dream of what a University could be, should be, is a lie. Perhaps we are nostalgically clinging to a past that never was. Perhaps. However, the present is untenable. A generation of students and a generation of teachers are bound by a love of learning, but everyone can sense that the current model of schooling deadens the spirit and slows the mind of teacher and student alike.

Crossposted (with edits) to InnermostParts.org

• 80MS gets some publicity on InsideHigherEd.com.
• The bachelor's degree means very little right now to employers.
• The gap between Millennials and Boomers is widening.
• Personal Democracy Forum: Seeking the Youth Vote.
• Millennial elected officials in southeast Michigan are organizing regionally.

The following is a guest post by Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais. Winograd and Hais are fellows of NDN and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008. --Mike

Seventy percent of Iranians are under thirty. These young people have twice the presence in the population of that country as America’s largest generation, Millennials (born 1982-2003), has in ours.

In the immediate aftermath of Iran's disputed presidential election, text messages became the tool for organizing post-election protests. Hundreds of thousands of tweets provided more, if not clearer, information about what was happening each day than traditional media. Opposition and government Facebook pages poured out dueling messages on the Internet. It suddenly seemed as if not only had American democratic values erupted on the barren landscape of a theocratic society, but also that young people’s technological capabilities might produce a regime change that no one anticipated. Clay Shirky announced, “This is it. This is the big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media.” And the notion that this was a “Twitter Revolution” quickly became the meme for the entire series of post-election events.

But then the entrenched establishment fought back using the very same Internet- enabled technologies to isolate, spy on, and ultimately shut down the resistance. Thanks to new capabilities recently acquired from two European telecom companies—Nokia and Siemens—as part of their country’s upgrade of its mobile networks, the Iranian government was able to monitor the flow of online data in and out of sites like Twitter and Facebook, from one central location. The Iranians deployed a technology called deep packet inspection, first created to put a firewall around President Clinton’s emails in 1993, to deconstruct digitized packets of information flowing through the government’s telecom monopoly that might contain what they considered to be seditious information before reconstructing and sending it on to destinations they were also able to track and monitor. The result was a 90% degradation in the speed of Internet communications in Iran at the height of the unrest, and a previously unseen capability to determine who the government’s enemies were down to the individual IP address level.

Once again the world learned that technology does not arrive with a built-in set of values that makes it work either for good or evil. Even though Internet technology has many virtues, it is not inherently liberating or enslaving. Instead how it is used is determined by the values of those who access it. Libertarians celebrate the individual empowerment that the Internet makes possible. But even though Ron Paul supporters used the technology to take on the Republican establishment in 2008, the end result that year was the election of a group-oriented, civic-minded candidate, Barack Obama, whose campaign used the very same technology to guide millions of people to undertake a collective agenda of change that Libertarians certainly did not “believe in.”

The difference between what libertarians wanted and what Obama achieved came from the generational attitudes and beliefs of Millennials, Obama’s key supporters, not from the technology that generation was so adept at using.

One of the founders of generational theory, Neil Howe, points out that the under-30 population of Iran grew up during a religious awakening in the Islamic world that came later than America’s “cultural revolution” of the 1960s. As a result, Iranian youth resembles Generation X, Americans now in their 30s and 40s. Like our own Gen X, these young Iranians are “pragmatic, individualistic, commercial, and anti-ideological (which is why they hate Ahmadinejad so much).”

Those values make them anti-establishment in the current crisis. We are fortunate that they feel deeply enough about the potential of democracy to risk their lives to “tear down that power structure,” to paraphrase what President Ronald Reagan, Generation X’s political hero, said in a different context. But now the central task of our government must be to translate that democratic impulse into a deeper belief in Millennial generation values, such as the power of consensus, the peaceful resolution of differences and the need to find win-win solutions to our problems.

That is why the President Obama's recent Cairo speech should be the bedrock on which America continues to engage large young Muslim populations throughout the world, including Iran:

“No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy."

This statement has the potential to become a governing creed for a new generation of young Muslims. If they come to have, as President Obama does, “an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose,” then the power of 21st century technologies will be used to advance the cause of freedom in Iran, rather than suppressing it. But tweeting those words won’t make it happen. Believing in them will.

One of my favorite aspects of blogging is learning about various programs and initiatives that infuse civic engagement and service-learning into the college experience. Dickinson College in Pennsylvania is prepared to announce the implementation of a public service fellowship program which will serve as one of the best examples yet of an institution linking its values with President Obama's call for public service.

From the soon-to-be-released release:

After four years of high school, not all students are ready to continue with higher education. For some, a one-year break from academia, commonly referred to as a "gap year," provides time for students to learn more about themselves and the world. Already common in other countries, the U.S. is now seeing an increase in students seeking time off before matriculation to save money for college; others seek civic engagement or travel. President Obama has called on Americans to participate in our nation’s recovery and renewal by serving in our communities. To support this idea, the federal government’s Web site Serve.gov is an online resource for registering a community program, finding service opportunities and the tools for creating one.

[...]

Students can apply for admission into the Fellowship in their senior year of high school. If accepted, students may defer enrollment until the beginning of the academic year for one, two, three or four years. Students who have engaged in public service for up to four years following high-school graduation receive a $10,000 tuition credit for each year of public service, up to a total of $40,000. Use of credits will be limited to a maximum of $10,000 annually and will be applied to the student's account when matriculated. The Fellowship amount will be in addition to other institutional grants and scholarships for which the student may be eligible. Dickinson grants and scholarships won’t be affected by receipt of the Fellowship unless the student's total gift aid exceeds the student's total cost of attendance. The college will work with students to determine the best timing for using the credits, within the context of other aid.

Students must engage in meaningful public service devoted to improving the human condition and/or the natural environment. A student may opt to join well-established public service programs that offer a wide array of experiences, such as AmeriCorps (which also awards up to $4,725 for college tuition), or the student may pursue an independently designed project with a local, national or international nonprofit organization. In all cases, students must work 30-40 hours a week for 10-12 months (at least 1,200 total hours). The hours may be a traditional 30-40 hour workweek, or a more intensive experience such as disaster relief work that may require 12 to 14 hour days. The public service work may be compensated or uncompensated.

In order to reap the financial benefits of this program, Public Service Fellows must submit an application including an essay stating how they hope to contribute to themselves and society through the work they will be completing. Once the project is complete, the student is then required to submit a reflection essay discussing how the student's experience will impact his or her Dickinson experience.

In addition to the financial advantages afforded to them, Public Service Fellows will add to an already impressive Dickinson education. Those students participating in the program will contribute to a reflection ceremony open to the Dickinson community by sharing lessons learned from the public service projects. Furthermore, the campus will give Public Service Fellows priority consideration for campus-based leadership positions, such as resident advisor and campus advisor, further emphasizing the importance of giving back to one's community throughout the Dickinson experience.

Granted, a Dickinson education isn't cheap to start with. The tuition itself is almost $40,000 a year, and the bill only increases after other fees are added. But as noted above, students can work in public service for up to four years, netting $40,000. While students can only spend up to $10,000 yearly, all of this money is on top of any additional financial aid the school offers (receiving the fellowship does not impact other scholarship and grant opportunities).

One way to add to the program might be to incorporate an academic piece. For instance, instead of limiting students to writing two essays, perhaps those deciding to matriculate at Dickinson any given year would be required to register for a seminar to further explore their experiences, more intensely investigating themes they observed or felt while serving. This would then improve the quality of the on-campus discussion led by fellows.

In 2008, many of the Democratic presidential candidates offered similar proposals on their platforms, but nothing was this beneficial to students. This initiative provides Dickinson with a way to accentuate the importance of civic engagement among its students, while making its valued education more accessible to students predisposed with the ability to work hard and develop strong reflective skills. Those fellows admitted will be offered opportunity after opportunity to learn how to contribute to the greater good, while following in the footsteps of Dickinson College's founder, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence. In a public address in 1787, Rush urged every citizen to become an engaged public servant. Now, some 222 years later, with another American leader issuing the same call, Dickinson College is leading the way among institutions of higher education.

Last week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan appeared before the White House Press Corps to discuss some of the Obama administration's changes to the FAFSA form, explaining that the present form was complicated enough to drive away many families who would have otherwise sent their children to college.

With simplification being the goal, Duncan enumerated the changes that the Dept. of Education can make now, without congressional approval.

As Duncan laid out the plan Wednesday, the Education Department will, right now, make several changes that do not require Congressional approval. This summer, the department will take advantage of existing technology on the Web-based FAFSA to allow married or independent students to skip questions about their parents, among others. In January, the department will stop requiring students with low incomes to answer questions about their financial assets, and only returning students will be asked about prior drug convictions, since the question does not affect first-year students. Department officials said they would work closely with state officials to set up the electronic form to "make it easier to answer questions that the states need but the federal government does not."

January will also mark the start of the department's test of a system to allow students who apply for aid for the spring 2010 semester to retrieve relevant tax information from the Internal Revenue Service to help them complete the online FAFSA. "When you're online filling out the FAFSA, there'll be a button that says, 'Want to go get your IRS data?' " said Shulman of the IRS.

Education Department officials say that the test will see whether the process of using IRS data to populate the FAFSA is workable, and that by focusing on students applying in the spring, they can postpone the thorny question of whether to use year-old tax data -- which creates potential challenges for financial aid officers and students alike when families' financial fortunes change significantly. "We haven't yet made the decision about whether to go to 'prior prior year,' " said Robert Shireman, deputy under secretary of education. "This will allow us to give the system a shot, and look at the prior prior year question later." About half of financial aid applicants -- those who attend college in the spring and many community college and other students who apply for aid late in the summer, right before the fall semester starts -- should be able to populate their FAFSA forms with current year data from the IRS, he said.

The thornier issues arise with the proposed changes that can't be made without congressional approval.

Department officials said they would ask Congress to eliminate a total of 29 questions about students' and families' finances that are not on the federal tax form. Several of those relate to families' assets ("As of today, what is the net worth of your (and spouse’s) investments, including real estate (not your home)?"), and eliminating the consideration of assets for most students by abandoning those questions would be among the more controversial steps the Obama plan calls for.

Most states and many private colleges now use the federal needs analysis methodology to decide how to allocate their own financial aid. While a panel of experts convened by the College Board last year called for determining financial need based solely on families' adjusted gross income and number of dependents, some college officials worry that states and colleges might stop using the FAFSA -- and require students to fill out other forms to apply for state or institutional aid -- if they no longer believe the federal form gives them sufficient information on which to base their decisions.

I like that the Obama administration is taking aim at a major obstacle to young Americans, otherwise eligible, receiving college educations. From my own experience, the FAFSA was a yearly headache for my dad and me every February.

I'm wondering if these proposed solutions are missing opportunities to bring community members' skills into the mix. A comment on the insidehighered.com story to which I linked earlier proposed that financial aid professionals be asked to provide pro-bono service at regularly scheduled "FAFSA Completion Night Programs." Those choosing to give back and participate would then be recognized in their community for their work. The idea, according to the commenter, would be to build off these programs and create events that would lead to more proactive financial preparations for college years ahead of time. With Obama's community organizing background and past articulation of the importance of citizenship and giving back, I think this approach would only make sense.

"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.