Secondly, I want to point out that whatever great intentions the Millennialists started the campaign with was lost to the screeching, finger-pointing, race-baiting and plain old negative attacks from Obama's supporters.  I just don't see a 'new' kind of governance emerging from such an old form of campaigning.  Calling something new doesn't make it so, and 'slash and burn' campaigning is a very old political style.

Maybe my attitude eminates from the fact that I'm an old man, nearing the first half-century of my life.  But every time I turn on the news to watch some sexist slangering Hillary, calling her disgraceful names or distorting her words to misrepresent who she is, or when I get called disgusting names on the "Obama" blogs for simply telling the truth about Ms. Clinton, what she said or did, then I completely fail to see the "compromise" or lack of combativness.  All I see is a contingement that shrills, shouts, calls names and throws tantrums till they get their way.  Their actions fail to match the rhetoric.

I am about your age, and I find myself in complete disagreement with you about the views of millenials towards partisanship. We are more partisan than our older gen X siblings, and perhaps as partisan as our grandparents, who voted for or lived under Franklin Roosevelt. Our registrations trend heavily Democratic, and we believe in the Democratic message.

"To us, Starbucks is more patriotic, and the English language holds no greater value than any other language--as a majority, we actually want to see bilingual education mandated and have no official language. We are an internationalist, multiculturalist, and technological generation. We can't imagine a time where we weren't able to talk to someone halfway around the world over the Internet at no delay. To many of us, humanism is more important than patriotism."

I am part of this millennialist group.  I don't really think a desire for compromise defines us though.  I think of us more as a generation that has risen above the values battles of the 90s.  I don't think abortion and gay rights are lightning rod issues that voters are getting drawn into opposing anymore.  When I was 16 and in high school, the issues of gay adoption and gay marriage were absolute no-nos for conservatives my age.  That gays being parents was bad was actually entertained by many people.  Now, we see the sky hasn't fallen and it isn't such a big deal.  Rick Warren just invited gay parents to his church, I believe (in the NY Times this week, I think).  The Republican hold on American values is considerably weakened.  The set of issues we are thinking about now include the economy, the environment, and the war in Iraq and how the heck we get out.  These issues to me don't seem much for compromising - they are being liberally framed.  I think these are being seen as "we have to go left [liberal], or else."  I think we sort of have a liberal consensus, and the Obama loving media helps create that impression.

Maybe young, inexperienced Obama is getting a lot of traction because we have a consensus?

That we [liberals] are beyond having to constantly discuss why Roe v. Wade and gays AREN'T evil is one of the reasons Obama's well publicized evangelical outreach annoys me.  Secular issues are getting all the attention now.  Why Obama is at least partially refocusing the campaign on faith, I don't understand.  I think we could make a great push to get us all on the same page with these secular/liberal issues (economy, Iraq, healthcare).  We could have a secular, liberal language to describe them.  Going back to faith and having to justify everything in evangelical terms IMO, kinda sucks.

Not to me, and the other posters, but your candidate. How is he demonstrating his compromising skills? His political history shows he uses the path of destruction tactic on his opposition. Alice Palmer, Jack Ryan, Hillary Clinton have all been the victims of his "new rules" to politics. Nothing even similar to the forceable removal of Hillary Clinton from the race has happened in the democratic party.

Now, he's got the nastiest, most fear-monger based ads against McCain, his stump speeches are laden with one slam against McCain after another, and today the DNC announced it is suing McCain for withdrawing from the public funding commitment he had made. Obama doesn't need to do any of this. He does it because it puts his opponents at such a grave disadvantage that he can win his competitions without having to prove his own worthiness.

I understand your generation has a desire to see change, but when you make that at the expense of the people who have shaped your world, I wonder how clearly you are thinking. Your generation has decided to pick the least competent, and most hypocritical person available to achieve what it is you say you want for the country. He's no negotiator. It's his way or no way, and he'll do what he has to in order to take our those in his way.

BTW - Both of my children are in the 18-29 year age group. One boy, one girl, both very bright, articulate and abundantly concerned about their futures. They see Obama as a threat to their security. They didn't buy into the rhetoric.

 But...executive power.  The growth of one branch of the government at the expense of two others.  To say nothing of what has become of the media.  I have seen little but hyperbole there.  The fact is that I will believe the shift, I guess, when we make it happen.  

 And even beyond that, the damage of the last two decades ensures rancor for the next two.  I suppose it is just a cycle, but there you have it.

It was the very well planned and executed takeover of Congress in 2002, whose roots were conceived and nurtured in the Reagan era that began this latest hatefest.

I was interpreting Obama's proclamations to usher in a new way of doing politics as something akin to Gandhi.  I remained unsure, given his history and his past actions in Chicago as a full-time real estate and acquisitions lawyer and part-time State Senator, how he was actually going to pull that off. Now I see from your writing that he's really not going to do anything that new or different that hasn't been done many times before in this country.  Though, really, it will take Congress to bring about any significant change.

And, as an aside, it was the politics of the 60's that helped bring equal rights, an end to legal discrimination on many fronts, environmental protections, an end to the Vietnam War, and the like.  The agitation of public and political bodies allowed sweeping changes to be made by the early 70's because of the struggles of the 60's. Nothing has equalled this politically progressive period for decades now, so I'm not sure what shortcomings you are referring to.