The conference rocked, plain and simple. I've never seen so many college progressives gathered in the same place, and it was a truly awesome spectacle. I didn't get to attend as many panels as I would have liked to, but reports from colleagues in the field indicate that everything really rocked. And that backdrop- unbelievable. One of the most important things about the whole conference was how positive the energy from the students was. We progressives often get criticized for only, well, criticizing and never offering proactive ideas and initiatives. The CP conference effectively refuted that thesis for good. Everywhere I went, in the panels, in the halls, during the parties, progressive students were engaged with each other in debating and crafting the solutions to the major policy challenges of our time.

In an ideal world where there weren't as many logistical and financial restrictions, it would be cool to have a multi-day conference for two reasons. First, to allow for students to interact with movement leaders in smaller groups. I also think it would be interesting to have some discussion from insider types to talk in depth about what the Right is doing on college campuses- i.e. a David Brock-type, or other folks in the know discussing, maybe from an in-depth historical perspective, how the Right crafted the myth of cognitive anti-conservative bias on campuses over a couple of decades. Knowing what the other side did helps as we progressive students try to counter it. Second, gatherings like these have vitally important social aspects, and a multi-day conference would enhance these benefits. The CP conference was the first time in the history of the modern progressive movement that so many young future leaders came together. Spending a little more time together in future years would allow us to perhaps make some better personal connections that could pay off in the years to come.

One final note of praise: the most important thing about the organization of this conference was how it was small-d democratic in its most fundamental sense. What do I mean? Something easy to overlook, but actually of extreme magnitude. The conference was free to attend. If there's one thing that should absolutely not change in future years, it's this aspect. Conservative student groups, like the YAF, charge over $300 for students to attend their conferences, which clearly restricts the economic diversity of the young leadership it cultivates. In contrast, the fact that CP.org didn't charge students to attend says a lot about what we value as progressives: that you don't have to be born rich to be a leader. If you've got the talent and the drive, the movement is going to step in and give you an opportunity to succeed. The cost-free aspect of the conference is thus deeply reflective of progressive values.

If Sam couldn't find someone who didn't consider Clinton a progressive voice, it's because he didn't talk to me or a number of other people I knew at that conference.

I think on the morning panel, there were three people who would fit in the "critics of Clinton" niche: Thomas Frank, Heather McGhee, and Katrina vanden Heuvel. Did they spend their time focusing on that stuff? No, they focused on the future as was the point of their meeting.

Nick Penniman of Campaign for America's Future may not be a radical, but I think we'd be hard-pressed to characterize him a centrist. And if radical means people willing to fundamentally disturb the status quo, it seems hard to characterize anyone in SEIU leadership as anything but radical.

Did I hear students at the table where I was eating describe themselves as DLC types? Yeah, I did. Did I meet others planning on launching national student networks devoted to political theater as a means of changing debate? Yeah, that happened too. Did I also see students who are reformulating the debate on foreign policy away from war and toward true anti-genocide policies? Yeah, I did.

Are we Marxists or their intellectual heirs? I don't think so. I consider myself more firmly in the Polanyi camp.

Finally, for "radical" outlets, many opportunities exist on campus. For maintstream progressives, who still seek to shift the debate to the left, more training and networking is clearly necessary.

But this whole article clearly begs the question: Is Sam describing his own editor as a sell-out?

I thought Sam had a valid point when he mentioned the near-silence on the situation in Iraq. It's a huge issue, and one where there is no consenus in our community. I think it's an urgent national security issue. It just seems odd that Iraq doesn't come up very much in the CP dialogue.

I agree with both points made by Sam
Graham-Felsen. While I went away from the
conference feeling energized and able to conquer
mountains, I must admit that I was and am
perturbed by the lack of not only radicalism but
any concrete alternatives besides name-bashing,
religion-mocking and the same old politicking.

And, yes, where was the discussion on Iraqi
withdrawal and against the militarization of our
youth and society? US interference in Venezuela
and other global democracies? US support for
dictatorships? Socialist and communitarian
alternatives to fend-for-yourself capitalist
globalization?

The problems of America and mankind are systemic.
Jettisoning Bush and his gang won't solve our
problems. The Democrats in office are not the
saviors that many at the conference find them to
be. If they were, why didn't more of them stand up
to the Patriot Act? Or the Iraq war resolution?
Sure, some will say they were cowed by fear and
fed misinformation, but that's no excuse,
especially with experts and information all
readily available at the click of a mouse.

What can we deduce from this? Our government is
corporate bought and owned. Nothing less than a
transformative, transcendent movement lasting
beyond election cycles and rising above the lost
hope of Democrats-as-saviors is necessary and each
of us is responsible for fulfilling our part in
it.

The 2008 election won't solve all our problems. A
concerted radical progressive movement is required
to salvage American democracy, global prosperity
and human dignity.

I hate to admit it but the conference, for all its
good points, seemed like a convention of old
Clinton cronies, including Dee Dee Myers, Paul
Begala, John Podesta, and Bill himself.
Unfortunately, that's how I also view the Center
for American Progress.

Come on, folks, this was the guy who played a
direct role in maintaining sanctions against Iraq,
sanctions that hurt the Iraqis--especially
children--more than they ever hurt Hussein. In
1994, he also tacitly allowed the overthrow, by
the brutal US-supported Haitian military, of the
popularly elected priest Aristide of Haiti simply
because he sought to work for all Haitians,
especially the poor who elected him, and have his
country stand on its own two feet, a threat to US
hegemony in America's backyard. He deformed social
programs by "reforming" welfare, putting the needy
poor out on the streets. (A discussion of the
needs of the poor was also missing at the
conference as was any honest and substantive
discourse on social and economic justice.) He
instituted "don't ask, don't tell" and signed the
Defense of Marriage Act. His administration may
have helped draft the Rome Statute laying out the
details for the vastly important human
rights-defending International Criminal Court, but
he sat on it thereafter, even if it was near the
end of his term. And, as a previous post states,
it's shameful that a woman with connections to the
Rwandan genocide introduced this mockery of a
President. To my knowledge, Clinton never did
apologize for sitting back with the rest of the
predominantly white, wealthy world while black
Africans were slaughtered.

Let's not dare call this fraud a progressive or
even liberal. One health care scheme and child tax
credit doesn't make someone progressive. And let's
not be nostalgic for a time when a Democrat
occupied the White House, even if the economy was
bubbly, even if lots of new jobs were "created" by
Clinton-Gore, the majority of those touted jobs
numbers being low-wage anti-union service
retailers like Wal-Mart and McDonald's. That's job
security!

Individuals like Begala have cheapened the
political discourse by participating in
hackery.

(I personally took intellectual offense to
Begala's evasion of the Marxist blow by Novak.
While the argument for Jesus Begala made is
convincing (and I take no religious side here),
what's wrong with Marx, a philosopher who's ideas
are dead-on about the capitalist system that
profits the few at the expense of the many? This
is hardly compatible with a meaningful democracy,
if that's what we had, even under a Democratic
chief executive and Congress. Again, here's
another example of self-proclaimed liberals and
progressives following the terms of debate set by
the conservatives and corporatists: capitalism
good, despite massive evidence of its failures,
but socialist possibilities bad. Furthermore, this
is a delusionary free market dogmatism, a
conversation on which might have been wonderful at
the conference as we sought out--if we
did--alternatives to the current problems that ail
humanity.)

Individuals like Clinton, a man morally guilty of
gross human rights violations and war crimes,
shouldn't be praised as a progressive, let alone
given a keynote spot at a conference touting
progressivism. Anyone who says Clinton is
progressive is guilty of some semblance of
dogmatism, an apparent characteristic of many
right-wingers of the fundamentalist Christian
persuasion. (I don't profess complete avoidance of
personal dogmatism, but I try to notice such
personal fundamentalism, guard against it and be a
critical thinker.)

Where are our principles and values? We don't need
to be more like them--the conservatives (not all
conservatives are Republicans, let's remember). We
just need to be damn proud of our
values--substantive and sustainable peace,
dignity, prosperity, cooperation, justice--and
stop cheering for men and women who have betrayed
the people of America and the world. We need to
stop saluting hacks and corporatists in liberal
and progressive masks.

Graham-Felsen is right: strategy, not principles,
were in abundance. Strategy, though, hardly lasts
past the jubilation of an election--and the tragic
realization that the guy you voted for is another
corporate stooge. Principles, properly guarded,
last a lifetime and are the lighthouses and
hearths of our own social transformation and
actualization. At the next conference, we need
less "tailoring the message" and more "stand up
for what's right and say so, damn it!" This
conference was good, but let's blast a bolt of
energy in to the anti-war, economic and social
justice student movements by holding a great
National Student Conference next year.

--Michael Ziri, Springfield, IL