This segment covers Mike's up close and personal impressions of six presidential candidates who spoke at Take Back America, 2007. For bios of Mike and Tish, our working approach to this interview series, and Part I: Overview of Take Back America, please visit our first installment. Heartfelt appreciation to you, TPMers, for your kind reception.It has been great fun for us to do these interviews. As always, we welcome your comments, suggestions, and collaboration.

Advance notice: Part III, our final segment, will be a book interview extravaganza. Mike brought home a ton of reading material from Take Back America and Tish will get him started on his reviews and elicit his suggested must-reads as we prepare ourselves to move forward successfully on the 2008 campaign trail.

Tish: Let's turn to the presidential candidates. You went in with an open stance, interested in all of the presentations. To begin, set the scene and introduce the actors for us.

Mike: The Sessions Agenda for TBA online is accurate and slightly different from the printed program. The one change which affected the Presidential Candidates was that Senator Hillary Clinton was originally scheduled to speak at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, and Mike Gravel was to speak at Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. These two switched slots–why, I haven’t a clue. None of the candidates spoke on Monday. I expect this was because the Monday agenda was kept light deliberately: people were checking in all day. Candidates were presented in groups of two:

· Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson: 8:30 & 9:00 a.m. Tuesday

· Barack Obama and John Edwards: 12:00 & 12:30 Tuesday

· Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich: 8:00 & 8:30 Wednesday

I don’t know how this order was established. Maybe Roger Hickey will tell us sometime when he drops in to write at TPM Café. Ask him, why don’t you? See what he says. The scene for all was the humongous International Ballroom. The illustration only begins to give a sense of how big it was. Around the main floor area is a sort of mezzanine elevated about four feet. The room is wider than it is deep. At the front to either side of the podium were two screens: a HD TV screen maybe 48" across (I’m not good t measuring these things) and to the left of these, a rear projection screen a rather like the ones I use to show films in class occasionally, so the order was Big Screen, HD Screen, Podium, HD Screen, Big Screen. These were absolutely necessary, given the size of the room: otherwise persons more than 3/4 from the front would have been looking at figures looking more like rather large flies on a picture window than like candidates with gravitas.

One thing I noticed, which I’m resisting calling a cultural marker. Many of those who were towards the front–say around the 5th row backward to the 10th row, spent as much time watching the speakers on the screens as they did watching them directly. Have we reached an era where electronic images seem more “real” than in-the-flesh ones? Maybe so. I caught myself doing it, even when I could see perfectly well without electronic intervention.

Each candidate was introduced by someone. Alas, the persons doing the introductions weren’t mentioned in the official program. Some of the remarks of those making the introductions are included in the official transcripts, but not all. There is no official transcript of Mike Gravel’s speech, at least not yet. I wasn’t taking notes about who introduced whom, and I’m afraid my memory isn’t entirely clear on this. The one I remember most clearly was Ralph Nader, who introduced Mike Gravel. Nader’s welcome was on the icy side. Many in the room had not forgiven him entering the 2000 election. Rightly or wrongly, they blame him for the Doofus-in-Chief occupying the White House today.

I can say without fear of contradiction that the Left is at least a gazillion miles ahead of the right in understanding the power of the new media and the Internet(s). All the plenary sessions are documented with video of the principal speeches. Many also have transcripts and photographs. What a goldmine for the next generation or two of historians. It’s kind of a goldmine for this historian too, because it means I don’t have to give you a blow by blow account of each candidate questing for the nomination. You can see/read for yourself. Wheee.

I do want to laud the folks at Campaign for America’s Future for really pioneering here. It will do a person good to take a look at the online version of the conference’s Agenda, which I’ve linked above. Notice that some sections of that agenda are shaded gray, while others are on a white background. The white sessions are “self-organized” which means exactly what it says...anyone with an idea for a session could organize and present one. What a brave idea. What a Progressive Idea. Unheard of. I can’t imagine the Democratic Party doing that at its Convention (hint, hint, hint–prove me wrong). A while ago, Viviane hosted a discussion: What does It Mean to be Progressive? Making a table of all the self-organized sessions would provide a pretty good response to that question.

Tish: Let's move to the first set of speakers, Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson. Walk us through your own first impressions of each candidate, free associations for now. Remark on anything you may have noticed about the audience, as well. So, freely spewing, I say Mike Gravel and you say...

Mike: It struck me there was a marked difference between the way the crowd (and I) welcomed Mike Gravel (very warmly) and the way we welcomed Ralph Nader, who introduced him (quite coolly). I think those of us “of an age” welcomed him with thanks for what he had accomplished (breaking the Pentagon Papers silence during the Viet Nam War, and taking an active role in environmental issues), rather than for what we expected he might accomplish as President. The younger set, I’m sure, cheered him for his uncompromising call for an exit from Iraq. (I cheered him for that too, for that matter). His speech I thought was pretty much pro forma for an event of this sort. You can watch it yourself. It’s only seven minutes long. Why? Because Ralph Nader took 18 minutes to introduce him! I didn’t hold the stopwatch: Rick Perlstein did. I think Perlstein was a bit hard on Gravel in his comments. I don’t think “Hero then. Bad man now”was called for by either what Gravel said from the podium or his response to Perlstein’s question. I would suspect that Gravel didn’t hear Perlstein: Gravel is 77 years old, for goodness’ sake. He looks good for 77, but I think seeing him in person really does explain the instantly famous zen spot. I doubt anyone really considers Gravel a serious contender for the nomination–including Gravel himself. Those who consider him a stalking horse for Nader may have imagined one too many conspiracies: yet again, Nader spoke more than twice as long, and from a position which made it difficult for people to really express their feelings about him without having spillover onto Gravel.  

Tish: Continuing to freely associate, I say Bill Richardson and you say ...

Mike: Sometimes substance is overcome by strangeness. I wish that the videos posted at the Campaign For America’s Future website included the introductions. I think that the Introduction for Bill Richardson will go down in history as the most contrived. Richardson was preceded to the podium by three men, the Villaneos, (sp? the transcript is phonetic and the introducers don’t appear in the program) brothers. I thought for a moment that we were going to get a singing introduction–something Country Western, as one of them was wearing a 10 gallon hat. It turns out that these were three of four brothers who had served in Vietnam at the same time. Only one of them spoke. They stood behind Richardson for the first third of the speech. Take a look: tell me what you think. The sub-texts of the presentation probably were (a) veterans would support an anti-war candidate, and that being anti-Iraq war was not being anti-troops, and (b) that Richardson would be the candidate of choice for Latinos. The delivery of these messages could have been done more subtly. The speech itself was impressive and Richardson’s foreign policy experience showed. His domestic experience, too, is impressive. Richardson, more than the other candidates jousted with the others–almost as if he was in a debate. Everything he said was logical...and I guess the candidates following had the chance to rebut, if they had a chance to get hold of his speech and revise their own. Yet I think I would have preferred him to introduce his concept as his concept without debating people who weren’t there. The great applause line in the speech was this:

“But there is a fundamental difference in this campaign, and this is the fundamental difference, and that’s how many troops each of us would leave behind. Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, here’s my position: I would leave zero troops behind. Not a single one. Not a single one. And if the embassy and our embassy personnel aren’t safe, then they’re all coming home too.”

I’d have no trouble pulling the lever for Bill Richardson in the general election, should he win the primary. But I still can’t get the picture of the guy in the 10 gallon hat scowling over his shoulder out of my mind.

Tish: Let's pretend . . . You are my significant other. We gather in the kitchen and you needn't mince words, you're home. I have been in a coma since Nixon was forced to resign in the face of impeachment proceedings. I need you to fill me in and fast. I am making breakfast, while you talk non-stop. You have my full support and listening attention. What strengths do candidates Obama and Edwards bring into the historical gap?

Mike: (laughing hysterically) I’m just going to modify this premise just a little...I have a significant other and we’ve been together since 1991. I do talk politics to her, though it takes some effort on my part to keep her paying attention. I do the cooking, such as it is, for both of us. How liberated can one get? Her name is Mindy. I don’t know if politics played much part in her life before 1991...there are some things one doesn’t ask a S. O. , or if one does, doesn’t get an answer.

Note: Mindy, Mike's Significant Other, is a marvelous senior citizen cat, about 17 years old, rescued from a pound in the next town down back in 1991. She is a proud DEMOCAT. She knows she can’t vote until she’s 18, and there’s some question about her age since her birth certificate has been lost.

Tish: At first glance, Professor, it appears that I am being upstaged by a feline!

Mike: hey... you have to realize that if I don't mind my p's and q's, my shoes get used as litter boxes. Dogs have owners, cats have staff. I suppose that I should ask each candidate whether they are a dog person or a cat person.

Tish: (laughs) I get no pity. Well, given the "preponderance" [unscientific poll] of Cat Persons at the cafe, this could be muy popular. Let's have a go. You are filling in your beloved cat, Mindy, at breakfast.

Mike: Good Morning, Mindy! Breakfast in a minute. Thanks for finally forgiving me for leaving you alone behind while I attended Take Back America, but someone had to stay home to guard the property, and you know you’re better at that than I am (thinking to myself: a little flattery never hurt in these awkward situations). I know there were some very rough spots in your life before we finally got together, and I know you don’t like to talk about them, and I respect that. We’ve been through some tough times since, but at least we’ve been through them together.

The Clinton years had their good moments, though we’re still without health insurance for you. Luckily the thyroid medicine I give you every day is within my budget. Still, we were at peace more or less, and while neither of us agreed with “don’t ask, don’t tell” it seemed better than previous policies, didn’t it?

Breakfast will be ready shortly...be patient with me. I have a blister on my foot and it is slowing me down some (appeals to sympathy sometimes work, sometimes not). Anyhow, the Bush years have been horrific, no need to go over that again. I’ve grumped about that daily for seven years now. The question is where to from here? I told you what I thought of Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson when I was making dinner last night. I know it was a little disrupted, but I get distracted by an irresistible urge to stroke your lovely hair (flattery again...but it’s true.) I know, I know, get on with it.

Barack Obama represents, in his ideas and in his very person, the face of America I’d like to see thirty years from now. Obama is proud of his mixed heritage. Imagine that only 6,826,228 of the 281,421,906 Americans living in 2000 could claim parents who were both black and white. This was quite a bit more than was the case when you came into my life, but still just a small minority. Can you imagine that intermarriage was illegal when I was young? I think it will be great when intermarriage is taken in a matter of fact way, no big deal–because that will affirm those who marriage within their own group, too. Choice for both options validates choice for any option. I know you don’t like it when I talk like a professor, but I can’t help it...that’s what I am, after all. Anyhow, think about the rest of his life. Does he know hard times? You bet. He was raised in a single parent household. Has he experienced the world? You bet. He lived in Asia as a child (you were as mad as I was when he was accused of having attended a Madrassa by those Fox News Felons), and he’s visited Africa. He knows and respects both Christianity and Islam. We’re going to need a President like that. He knew poverty, and he’s made something of every opportunity coming his way. Smart Guy! But he’s not stuck up about it, is he? He remembers all his roots and doesn’t try to escape his heritage.

He speaks with the passion and vision of a Martin Luther King or a Jesse Jackson...that old-timey, rhythmic, cadence that builds and builds until one can hardly help jumping to his feet cheering. You get the feeling he really understands your needs and your dreams too. Empathy? Tons of it. Who cares whether Tucker Carlson doesn’t think empathy is important? Tucker is a jerk! We booed and hissed when he called Obama a pothead and wuss a few days ago, remember? Our whole relationship is based on empathy...I can tell right now that you really are getting hungry and you haven’t said a word about it, just gave me “that look,” you sweetie-pie, you. So let me sum up by saying I really liked him. So did the standing room only crowd at Take Back America. I was one of those who had to stand up (blatant plea for sympathy–never works), because listening to Nathan Newman made me late. You like Nathan, right? He’s the pro-union, pro-health insurance guy on TPM café. But at the end of his speech Obama had everyone cheering. Take a look on the video. You’ll see what I mean. Maybe we’ll watch it again before going to bed this evening.

I felt sorry for John Edwards, having to follow Barack Obama like that. A lot of people left, which was good for me because I got a seat (you know my feet do a lot of work when I’m standing around), but bad for him and bad for those who didn’t get a chance to hear him. I overheard someone saying that “Obama just sucked all the air out of the room,” and I think I knew what that person meant. I’m really curious how the sequence was set up. I think I’ll never find out. I don’t have your mind-reading skills.

I like John Edwards a lot. In a way he’s a bridge to my youth when we did take poverty seriously, when there were Great Societies, and Wars on Poverty. He in fact takes me back further than my youth...to the days of New Deals and remembering that Freedom from Want is one of our Four Freedoms. Edwards is the antithesis of Grover Norquist, whom we both detest. At least you don’t have to explain that all Swedes aren’t like that. Sorry about the noise. Norquist gets me worked up so I swacked the cutting board extra hard chopping up the meat for you. I’m almost done: brekkie in a minute.

Edwards gave a good speech. He did one of the most difficult things any candidate ever has to do, he said he was wrong about something. How much courage that takes. (Mindy almost never admits a mistake...but occasionally she gives me a look which says “I know I goofed up, but I’d appreciate you not mentioning it”) The people that left missed it, boo them. The people who remained probably would have applauded louder if their hands hadn’t been sore from clapping for Obama.

 I like Edwards, and I’d vote for him in a minute though he’s probably not my first choice, even though he’s got a million ideas for great programs to bring the New Deal up to date.. He’s a handsome man and has a great haircut. I know you think he’s a hottie, though you try to disguise that out of sympathy for my feelings. I hope you don’t think I’m being to catty (that’s your job in this relationship) if I remark on his hair color. Edwards was born on June 10, and just celebrated his 54th (I think, he was born in 1953, and you know how I am on math). I thank my stars you don’t mind gray hair, and didn’t up and leave me when I started to go from cinnamon to salt and cinnamon to cinnamon and salt to all salt in the hair on my head. I suspect that Edwards is on the same path, but maybe he’s naturally eternally youthful. Why do I care about this? Only because I think the American obsession with youth is nuts. I’d love to see someone with gray hair run for president...especially someone who turned gray at a reasonably early age. After all, you’ve got a bit of gray above your ears, you don’t mind, and I think it is very attractive. Bill Clinton didn’t look less handsome when he miraculously turned gray a few months after leaving office. (chopping noises... then silence).

Here’s your chopped liver, dear. Hope you like it. Why don’t we finish listening to Edwards’ speech while you eat your fill. Then I’ll scratch your ears a bit, if you’re of a mind for that.

Tish: Pretend. A hypothetical young adult --say, your niece -- will vote for the very first time in 2008. Filled with the idealism of Kucinich, the centrality of peace in his mission statement, his record of integrity, yet inspired by the prospect of being able to vote for our first woman President, Hillary Clinton, she comes to you for your first-hand impressions of both of their addresses at Take Back America. She asked you to be her eyes and ears, her heart and her head.

She says, "Uncle Mike, Kucinich is strong enough to be gentle and Hillary is compassionate enough to be firm, give me all your impressions, as I move forward in my assessments. I want to know everything you think and feel about them both."  

Mike: This is less hypothetical than it seems. I have a niece who just finished her first year of college and her first time in the polling both will be in the elections next year. She lives in Iowa, but I expect she’ll be back out in California when the caucuses are actually held. Too bad, because I think the caucus system is fascinating and I’d like to hear what she had to think about them. She’s smarter than Uncle Mike was at that age... she’s already a liberal/progressive.

Hi, Kari. Ol’ Uncle Mike is back from Washington DC with a suitcase full of pamphlets and dirty clothes, and as soon at the pamphlets air out I’m sure you’ll want to paw through them. You ask me what I think about Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton, and I’m happy to discuss both of them with you. But you know me, I’m also a teacher, so I’ll have to give you a little outside reading to do and there will be an exam later (just kidding about the exam...put that skillet down).

Hillary Clinton spoke first on the last day of the conference: at 8:00 in the morning. I was up on time. Honest I was, I walked from my Bed and Breakfast and still got there in time to get a seat. There weren’t as many people as there were for Obama the day before. I think some of the people weren’t as good as I was the night before...really, early to bed and early to rise and all that. Actually, I think there were some who were packing to catch early flights and things like that...the trouble with getting a conference slot on the last day is that people have to check out and leave, unless they want to spend a lot of money for an extra day in Washington.

I have liked Hillary Clinton for a very long time, but I’m not sure I like her as a candidate for President, and this has nothing to do with her being a woman, honest. Some people are better people than they are candidates. Let me explain, then let you do some comparing yourself. When Bill Clinton was in office, Hillary Clinton gave two remarkable addresses. One was before the Democratic Convention in 1996. The Republicans ridiculed this speech, but I loved it. It said we’re all in this together. We have responsibilities toward each other, and the whole community is responsible for the generation coming along. Her daughter was about your age when Mrs. Clinton gave this speech, and I think if I were to speak now I’d copy a lot of what she said, only my example would be Kari, not Chelsea. What? Of Course I’d footnote what she said. What do you think, I’m a plagiarist? Oh, you were just kidding. O.K. No harm, no foul.

The second great speech took place at the International United Nations Conference on Women. This speech was so great that it has been nominated one of the 100 best speeches by American Rhetoric which is a great place to find speeches on every topic imaginable, over 5,000. Of them. I know I’m showing off a little, but take notes. Professor Plummy is going to ask you for a brilliant paper next semester, and you may just find some thing useful at that website. Like I said, I loved both of those speeches. They came from the heart and yet represented sound thinking as well...I think they represent the best qualities of Senator Clinton. You can compare them with her speech at Take Back America. You can watch it as well as read it. When I compare these three speeches, I think the first two were far superior. What do you think? Of course the occasions were different, but she was more her true self in the earlier ones, and I think the audience would have responded well had she spent more time with those things than with showing how tough she was. We all know she’s tough, she lives with Bill, doesn’t she? That’s not a partnership for sissies.

Yes, those were boos you heard in the background. I didn’t like them any more than you did. We don’t do that sort of thing in the Midwest, except at football games. But then some people let their emotions out more easily than Lake Wobegoners do. I don’t know if you’ve heard the right wing spin on that, you have a stronger stomach for talk radio than I do, but here’s the truth behind the booing. Well, that’s part of the truth. There was actually some organized protesting too, by a group called Code Pink who have been challenging Senator Clinton on her foreign policy for over a year with their Listen, Hillary, campaign. Clinton is going to have to learn how to deal with this sort of thing during her campaign, so maybe this is good practice for her if she wins the Nomination.

Kucinich? Gesundheit. I know that was an awful joke, you didn’t have to throw that wet sponge at me...at least not with such good aim. Did you know that I was in Cleveland way back when Dennis Kucinich was the youngest member of the City Council ever. I was in graduate school at the time. Later, Dennis went to the same university I did, but by then I was off and working way out east. Along with Obama, Kucinich was the sentimental favorite of the conference. He spoke about all the issues dear to the hearts of all of us. And he did it with a sincere, passionate, stemwinder speech. Those who stayed to listen weren’t disappointed. (A number of people left after Hillary concluded). I love his peroration: 

 “I tell you there's a new America out there and a new world out there. I can see it. It is just waiting to be called forward. It is waiting for us to see it together. It is waiting for us to see a nation at peace, a nation with full employment, a nation with health care for all, a nation with education for all, a nation with peace for all, a nation with civil liberties for all, a nation with compassion for all, a nation with love for all! (Cheers, applause.)

This is a new America! Let's call it forward! This is a country we love! Let's make it happen! America, America, America! Thank you! (Cheers, applause.)

Kucinich has the enthusiasm and energy of a teenager. See for yourself in the video of the speech. He even still looks like a teenager, but I don’t hold that against him, not much, anyhow.

I love Dennis Kucinich. His ideas are innovative, and progressive. He has a policy for everything, but that may be a drawback, not an advantage. Policy wonks are not my favorite people. Were not Barack Obama in the campaign, I’d be a little more enthusiastic about Kucinich’s campaign at this point. Oddly enough, the biggest drawback to Kucinich’s campaign is that he’s a Vegan. I know you’re thinking about being a Vegan yourself, and you don’t eat a lot of meat. But think about all those farmers in Iowa. I think they’d vote for a wizard for President before a Vegan. Oh, come off it...Harry Potter isn’t old enough to be President, and he’s British, besides. Seriously, some people are more important in the running for the Presidency than they would be for the winning of it. William Jennings Bryan ran for President three times, losing each time, but his ideas made it to the table of political discussion, and some of them shaped America for the better.

My coleslaw is done mellowing. I hope this is helps you make up your mind...you’re the brightest niece I have. Yes, I know you’re also the only niece I have, but I’m sure you’ll look all this stuff over, and whether or not we cast our votes the same direction, I think we’ll both choose great candidates to support. After all, there really aren’t any lemons in the Democratic basket.  

Take Back America Conference Update: Interview with aMike Part I  and Part II  are  now up!

 Update -- Part II: Take Back America Interview with aMike is now up!

Our own beloved TPM Café blogger, aMike, recently attended this year's annual Take Back America Conference and several of us have been eagerly anticipating his report. The idea of an interview format appealed to both of us when exchanging comments recently on cscs's blog. The idea seemed to elicit approval from fellow bloggers, and so we began the process on July 1st. Our ongoing interviews are being conducted via email correspondence. Following is Part I of our three-part series: Overview of Take Back America.

Mike wants us to keep the bios informal. "I'm trying to keep the stuff I'm writing fairly relaxed and at least a bit on the humorous side."

This much we can tell you: Mike holds a B. A. in Human Relations and also in Music, and a Ph. D. in American Studies. He's been teaching undergraduates for 34 years at the same institution on the East coast. And yes, he's been known to occasionally warble a line or two of a song to make his point. Tish holds a B.S. in Zoology, a M.A. in Communicology, and Ph.D. in Social Ecology. Her scholarly foci are Human Rights & Peace Studies and she teaches in both elementary and graduate schools on the West coast. She paints too many large acrylic canvases, necessitating an oversized garage which triples as her frame shop, gardening shed, and dance studio. Another intimate detail: Mike recently confided to Tish that he moonlights as staff to an old cat named Mindy. For you visual learners, a must-have: Mike put his picture up on his bio page. As he tells it, the fact that he "looks like Santa" is probably already evident.

As always, we welcome your comments, suggestions, and collaboration. Advanced notice: our next interview, Part II, will focus entirely on Mike's Take Back America report on the presidential candidates.

Tish: Let's begin by telling a little bit about your trip to the conference. What sparked you to attend?

Mike: I have to take this back a few years, but that’s normal for historians, right? In the spring of 2004 I was researching in preparation for a new course I was going to offer, Class and Culture. Someone at my University, or maybe it was simply a brochure which wound up in my pigeon hole, informed me about conference, Inequality Matters, sponsored by Demos in June 3-5 in New York City. The speakers list was incredible. Many of my heroes were participating, including Bill Moyers and Barbara Ehrenreich.

The Conference was spectacular. When I signed up, I had it in mind to drift in and out of NYC and sample some of Gotham’s delights. I wound up getting to every session early and leaving every session late. Even the AFL-CIO chorus performed labor protest songs (very well, I might add).

Anyhow, I left the conference all fired up, with a satchel full of literature and a lot of books, and resolved to attend the next year’s event. As it happened, there wasn’t a next year’s event, alas, it was a one of a kind event. But as the list of cosponsors shows, the networking was intense. Roger Hickey and Robert Borosage, co-conveners of Take Back America, were prominent in affiliated groups. And someone who answered my [follow-up]e-mail told me about Campaign for America’s Future and the Take Back America Conference in Washington, DC. When I got hold of the brochure for TBA 2005, lo and behold, Bill Moyers and Barbara Ehrenreich were [again] speaking. I dropped everything and signed up to go. I’ve gone every year since.

Take Back America had been happening several years before I stumbled on it. This is one of the problems in Progressive America. There are things going on all over. MHO, all this diffusion of activity and power is one of the hallmarks of the Progressive Spirit. But it would be wonderful if one place would keep an updated calendar. It would make plugging in very much easier.

Demos remains one of my favorite websites. It is rich in content and active in supporting a wide variety of causes dear to the hearts of TPM Café afficionados. I recommend taking a gander at it.

Tish: What can you tell us about the attendees? Give us a picture of the group composition and the flavor of the conference. What were the distinctives for you this year?

Mike: The best “official” information is probably Robert Borosage’s official wrap-up published at the conference website. I wonder if anyone who knows of the Hilton Hotel and Towers in Washington finds it a weird as I do. It looks a little like one of the grand Seaside Hotels in Miami Beach, and not like one would imagine a Washington Hotel to be. The interior layout is curvy and cut up, so it is hard to tell how many people are actually in the place. You keep expecting to meet yourself coming back.

So there very well may have been 3000 attendees, or even more. Security was not very tight: people wore or did not wear their name tags around their necks. We had tickets for breakfast, lunches, and dinner, but they were never taken nor even looked at. I guess progressives are an honest bunch and we just assume nobody would crash the party without paying. I have no doubt that they did come from 40 states, I met people from Massachusetts, Ohio, Washington (the State) Iowa, Tennessee, and more I don’t remember off the top of my head. Actually I met the first person attending the conference on the train down. It was pure coincidence. She hadn’t been to Washington DC before and asked me about how to get to the Dupont Circle area–where the cab stand was.

I gather that the Hilton is a favorite convention venue in DC, but I doubt that we looked like a typical convention. There were suits and ties, of course, but there were plenty of folks dressed in less conventional garb (pun intended). Not many funny hats, though...not like one sees at the party conventions. There was about every color of skin one could imagine. There was about every color of hair one could imagine (and a few one couldn’t imagine, for that matter). There were two things which impressed me about the attendees:

1. There were many families in attendance, including multi-generational families. I saw at least one grandmother there with children and grand-children, and numbers of middle-age families with kids who were either teenagers or early college age. There were a number of sessions which were directed at training young in the techniques of grass roots politics, and I think this will pay off in the future. There have always been a significant number of young people there, and I believe that number has grown from each year. I think that the convention could have used child care this year, or perhaps an activity program for kids under 12 or under ten. I saw a number of those around, and I got the idea the parents were playing tag team.

2. The convention looked far more Middle America this year, and I mean that in the best sense of the word. Sometimes one recognizes a look that I might call political slick/east coat chic. Good haircuts, good suits, easy sophistication, maybe you know the type. Sometimes one also recognizes a look I might call aging hippie/granola missionary. Shawls with fringe (no shawls this convention–it was 97 degrees, faded jeans, big belt buckles, ponytails (men and women alike) moccasins or sandals, and turquoise someplace on the body. Well, there were a fair number of both of these types in attendance. But there were also those with not-so-perfect haircuts, un-toned bodies tending towards the rotund, and black pants with brown shoes, or vice versa. I remember three men especially, a father, son and brother from Ohio. I sat with them at one meal and we kept bumping into each other over and over. The son was probably somewhere between 18 and 20–either just graduated from high school or early into college. Dad and bro were late thirties or early 40s. None of them had been within miles of a Gold’s gym. They looked like they would be perfectly at home at any Rotary Meeting between Pennsylvania and Nebraska. If Nixon had seen them, he would have asked them to pose as poster children for the Silent Majority. But they were anything but silent, and if they do represent the majority, then the majority is on our side.

The convention looked a bit like America looks--Perhaps a little more multi-racial, multi-ethnic than one would see in suburbia. It was certainly upscale, but not pretentious about it, except that the food was a little on the nouveau cuisine side. This convention is not cheap–there are no cheap hotels in DC.

Tish: Let's focus next on content. Since the official website offers a goodly amount on the scope and sequence of the proceedings, zero in on your own involvement. What role(s) did you play, which events did you calendar for yourself, what were your initial motivations in doing so?

Mike: My role was that of interested spectator/browser. I had, of course, looked over the agenda for the conference often...more often as the date for leaving came. I marked a number of sessions which I thought would be interesting, but, as usual, once I got there I managed to toss my original schedule out the window. For me, going to one of these is rather like attending the State Fair: One begins with a plan of action and then gets caught up in the exhibits and hoopla; and the barkers distract one from one’s original plans.

I did have one objective I half-way fulfilled. Two of the regular writers at the TPM café were making presentations: Nathan Newman and E. J. Graff. I had intended to see both, but wound up only going to the one in which Newman participated. As usual, sessions I wanted to attend were in conflict with each other, and being a not-woman, I decided I could probably miss “Women Rising: The issues that Count.” I thought it would be fun to make a personal connection with some of those whose words I had been connecting with for a couple of years. It was fun, too. For the curious...Newman looks much younger in person than he looks on his bio picture. But then everyone looks much younger these days.

The War of Ideas: A New Economics for America

Out of Iraq: What comes next

The Progressive Majority Reception

Robert Greenwald’s film session on “Lift the Ban”

New Strategies for the Global Economy

A Progressive Agenda for States (Newman’s session–I would have chosen one of two other simultaneous sessions otherwise--The Blogosphere: from Ideas to Action or It’s the Story: How Culture and New Media can Move Progressive Ideas. The Imp of the Perverse always does this to me...puts the things I’m most interested in opposite each other and makes sure that no matter what I choose it will be the wrong thing).

Poverty and Politics: Katrina’s Clarion Call

Health Care for All

The New Civil Rights: The Immigrant Struggle

The Mainstream Media: Fair and Balanced (once again a real tough choice–I wanted to be at Curbing the Imperial Presidency and NextGen Religious Voters: The New Values Debate, as well).

My other intention in attending was to listen with as open a mind (and heart) as possible to all the candidates for the Democratic nomination, and then to make up my mind which I would prefer at this stage of the campaign. The only announced candidates who were no-shows were Joe Biden and Chris Dodd.