But it hasn’t always been that way. In the thirty years following World War II, we saw ourselves as a country that accomplished great things. We saved the world from tyranny—and then helped rebuild the nations we defeated. We cured diseases like polio, measles and rubella. We built an interstate highway system and most of our major airports. We cut the poverty rate in half and we provided health care for our elderly and poorest citizens.

And while we were accomplishing these things, we built the largest middle-class in history. The formula for this success was largely based on the principals set forth in Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal: a significant investment of government spending on infrastructure and social programs combined with a progressive tax structure that funded the system. While debates raged around social issues and social spending, both parties agreed that government had a significant role to play in regulating business and providing a substantial social safety net.

In contrast, the crowning achievement of the supply-siders was a Dow that hit 14,000. We see where that got us.

The accomplishments of the post-war era took vision that tapped into shared values and helped to define us as a nation. Over the last thirty years, we’ve lost that sense of unified purpose and, hence, a part of ourselves.

The failed policies of the Bush administration, high fuel prices and the tanking economy certainly created a perfect storm for Democrats. But the results were as much a reflection of changing demographics and attitudes as they were about "throwing the bums out."

Several social issues that once sparked a visceral reaction from many voters no longer have the same punch. And North Carolina, the least unionized state in the nation, is mellowing toward organized labor.

In May, the State Employees Association of N.C. affiliated with Service Employees International Union, becoming SEIU Local 2008, the largest public employees union in the South.

Then this month, workers at the world's largest hog-processing plant, in the Duplin County town of Tar Heel, voted to unionize.

Five years ago, few people would have predicted that North Carolina would give organized labor two of its biggest victories in a single year.

The response was as remarkable as the victories themselves. The news media basically shrugged. Both events got ample and fair coverage, but there was little editorializing and no big stories. The general public took little notice. Even Smithfield executives struck a conciliatory tone, calling the election in Tar Heel fair and saying they look forward to working together.

During the race between Hagan and Dole, anti-union groups barraged voters with phone calls and mailings warning them that Hagan's election would usher in a new age of unionism that would threaten the economy and workers' independence. Hagan beat Dole by over 8 percentage points, indicating that voters either didn't believe it or, more significantly, didn't care.

FOR LABOR AND FOR NORTH CAROLINA WORKERS, THESE DEVELOPMENTS COULD NOT HAVE COME AT A MORE OPPORTUNE TIME. The unbridled capitalism that began under President Ronald Reagan almost 30 years ago has failed. The middle class has shrunk, while income disparities between rich and poor have grown. The economic crisis today has been caused by mismanaged capital, not greedy workers.

Across the country, people have lost faith in the captains of industry who reaped unprecedented salaries and profits while driving the economy into the ditch. Over the last 30 years, wages (adjusted for inflation) have remained flat or decreased while productivity increased. Those owning and running corporations benefited from this increased productivity, but the workers who provided it did not.

The Obama administration will usher in a new era of checks and balances. Government will more rigorously oversee and regulate the private sector. The incoming leadership views unions as part of the equation, providing protection and a voice for wage earners.

In North Carolina, SEANC affiliated with SEIU after several years of small pay increases, cuts to benefits and a raid on the state employee pension fund. In Tar Heel, the United Food and Commercial Workers, which organized the Smithfield plant, won its battle after 16 years of allegations of unsafe working conditions and bullying by management. Union success at remedying these situations could lead to more organized labor in the state.

One barrier to organizing here, a negative public perception of unions, seems to be falling. Few people are still alive who remember the brutal repression of organizers in the state during the 1920s and '30s. People who have moved here over the past 25 years may not be inherently pro-labor, but they don't harbor the negative stereotypes held by many native Southerners. Finally, the trickle-down economics that took care of business while leaving wage earners to fend for themselves has left the middle-class struggling.

With a pro-labor administration poised to take over in the worst economy in over 50 years, unions have an opportunity to return to a level of influence that they have not had since World War II. To succeed, they will need to grow and deliver on their promises. North Carolina is providing a testing ground on both counts.

The McCain campaign is imploding. This week, they may well have squandered whatever chance they had of changing the dynamic in the race. Instead of focusing on serious issues facing the country, they chose to overreach with accusations that are more reminiscent of 1958 or ’68 than 2008.

Sarah Palin began the week by accusing Obama, his supporters and even whole states as being “un-American” or “anti-American.” Next, McCain laid into Obama for having “socialist” policies. Republicans had to reach deep into their toolbox for this language—past the “liberal” label of the 1980s and 90s, past the “people like us” of the ‘60s and ‘70s, all the way to the McCarthy Era of the 1950s Cold War. While these tactics may fire up the base, they alienate a more moderate electorate that is looking for unity and leadership in a time of crisis.

Republicans have long used fear to divide and conquer. What’s different this year is who is saying it. In both Bush campaigns and in the 1990s, Republican candidates have let third parties make the most personal or outrageous attacks to give themselves plausible deniability. This year, McCain and Palin are the messengers which means McCain has to own these statements—and they don’t sound very presidential.

With McCain and Palin setting the tone, the wing-nuts of the Republican Party feel emboldened to say what they think. Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R-MN) called on the media to investigate Congress to determine which members were pro-American and which are anti-American. Congressman Robin Hayes (R-NC) introduced McCain at rally with “Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.” At this time in history, Americans are looking for someone who can bring the country together and they don’t want, or need, this type of rhetoric.

McCain had a huge opportunity to look like a leader and refocus the race. Shortly before the third debate, the media was dumping on both campaigns for misleading attacks. McCain could have used the debate as forum to say, “Enough is enough. We’ll pull all of our negative ads if Obama will do the same and make this race about the issues facing Americans.”

In doing so, he could have cast himself as a true maverick who challenges the way campaigns are run. He could have outlined serious policy proposals, forcing the Obama campaign to respond. And, he could have reassured an electorate that is having doubts about his leadership abilities. Instead, McCain chose to defend the Bill Ayers attack, another throwback to a time gone by, and to make himself look more out of sync with the conversation taking place across the country.

Thomas Mills is president of Thomas Mills Communications, a Democratic consulting firm based in Carrboro, NC.

John McCain has had a disastrous two weeks. He looked erratic and unpresidential. His debate performance showed him to be angry and mean. In addition, his vice-presidential pick went from savior to liability. As result, his poll numbers plummeted and Obama opened up a clear lead both nationally and in key battleground states.

Make no mistake: the Republicans will not give up the presidency without a fierce and dirty fight. Much of that fight will come from 527s. In Michigan, independent groups have already begun targeted ads that attempt to tie Obama to currupt or radical African-American political figures and imply that Obama is Muslim. Their targets are white working class voters whose economic interests lay with Obama but who may buy in to racial stereotypes. 

It's time for the Democratic-leaning 527s to get in the game. Unlike the race-baiting on the right, there are legitimate questions about McCain's ability to lead that the Obama campaign might not want to touch. It's the job of the 527s to make that case.

First, is McCain emotionally stable enough to lead the nation? This past week, he demonstrated erratic behavior that called into question his grip on reality and his decision-maiking ability. He said the economy was "fundamentally sound" while the markets were crashing around him. His reactionary finger-pointing and shoot-from-the-hip response to the crisis led no less than George Will to say, "It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency." In addition, his choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was not thought through.

Second, McCain's age and health are fair game. He chose a running mate who is not prepared to serve as President so Americans deserve to know whether he's likely to serve out his term. Democracy for America released an ad discussing his history with cancer. I would have ended with Palin telling Katie Couric, "I'll get back to ya on that," but it's a good start.

Third, John McCain's decision-making is questionable. He has shown the same govern-from-the-gut mentality that George Bush used to define his disastrous presidency. His choice of an unqualified running mate, his decision to suspend his campaign, and his meddling in the bailout negotiations show that he puts his own self-interest ahead of the interests of the country. 

Finally, they should go right to the heart of his message--that he is not fit to lead on foreign policy matters. Obama scored points in the debate when he told McCain that he was wrong on the war, wrong when he said we would be greeted as liberators, wrong when he said it would be quick and wrong when he said there were weapons of mass destruction. In addition, he is wrong in not sitting down with our enemies. Iran is stronger because of our failed foreign policy, North Korea has nukes because of it, and now he says he won't pursue al-Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afgan border.

Republican strategists and pundits are urging McCain to go negative and attack Obama personally. Obama, for his part, is a candidate of hope and change. He should stick to that message. The interest groups, though, who have a huge stake in this election need to get ready for battle. When the Republican smear machine cranks up, the progressive community needs to be ready for battle. Lock and load.

John McCain's call to suspend the campaign is a cynical attempt to reset the political clock.  Since the crash of the financial markets, McCain's numbers have been in a freefall.  Americans blame Republicans for the debacle by a 2-1 margin and recent polls have shown Obama pulling ahead by numbers outside of the margin of error.

One poll, The Washington Post/ABC News, showed McCain down by 9 points with Obama over 50%.  In the first show of panic by the McCain campaign, McCain's pollster called to complain that the numbers were wrong.  The standard line of the campaign should have been, "We're not paying attention to the polls" or "Polling is all over the map."  The reactionary response, though, showed fear.  A few hours later, McCain announced he was suspending his campaign.

What the McCain camp really wants is time.  Time for the people to settle down and hope that he can change the conversation, making the debate about leadership and not the failed policies that got us into this mess--policies John McCain supported.  They hope that four or five days of no debate, no ads and no press will give them the time they need to retool their game.

Obama's response was spot on.  Now, more than ever, the American people need to hear from the people who ultimately lead us through this troubled economy.  This crisis is real, but hiding from the press and the people is not the answer.

This year, Democrats have the opportunity to capitalize on fear--not fear of a terrorist attack, but fear of financial ruin.   That fear is much more realistic.  The collapse in the markets, both in housing and on Wall Street, is the result of Republican policies--begun under Reagan and completed under Bush--that stripped away regulations and oversight that were put into place to protect average citizens from rampant speculation.

Democrats do not need to get bogged down in specific policies or programs.  They merely need to assure the American people that they will act.  In contrast, they need to let the people know that George Bush, John McCain and the Republicans have stood by silently while savings and pensions have disappeared.  And they need to tap into people's fear of the uncertain future.

Our remake of the Bush wolves ad of 2004 is below. But instead of talking about terrorists, the narrator talks about creditors.

Visual:  Wolves stalking through the forest.

Background: Ominous music

Narrator: In an increasingly dangerous economy, when creditors are stalking families and foreclosures are on the rise, George Bush and John McCain say the economy is fundamentally sound.  Tell that to the families that are already hurt--or who now have the wolves at their doors.   Don’t let the Bush-McCain economic policies prey on us anymore.

As news about Alaskan Governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin creeps out, there’s a real temptation to focus on all of the fun and gory details. From her days banning books to her flip-flop on “the bridge to nowhere” to troopergate, this woman apparently has more baggage than a Pullman car. However, Democrats need to remember, this is not about Sarah Palin; it’s about John McCain. It’s about his judgment, how he makes decisions and the people he wants in his administration.

Shortly after McCain introduced Palin as his pick, Florida Governor Charlie Crist inadvertently laid out the problem in an interview on CNN. When asked what he thought about the choice and her relative inexperience, Crist said that he was satisfied because John McCain has great “gut instincts.” George Bush has just spent eight years running the country into the ground based on his “gut.” We can’t afford four more years of a President who puts more emphasis on intuition than solid research.

As the revelations about Palin began to emerge, McCain steadfastly maintained that she had been properly vetted. However, details about that process suggest that it was incomplete at best. In fact, no one from the campaign even went to Alaska to ask questions until the day before McCain announced Palin was his pick. Either the McCain team is misleading the media and the country about the vetting process or they have very low standards for “thorough.”

Finally, McCain has chosen a woman who shares some of the worst characteristics of the Bush cabinet. Like Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove and other Bush henchmen, Palin has a history of politically motivated firings. For a guy who says he wants to move beyond partisanship, McCain is off to a bad start.

Over the next week or so, more revelations about Palin will come out. The media will want to examine every detail and that’s their job. Democrats, however, need to remember that Palin is not the issue; McCain is. Despite her well-delivered speech, Palin is a rookie in big league politics where the game is about to get very rough. Palin will likely disappear except to stand by McCain’s side periodically and try to survive her debate with Joe Biden. McCain, however, has made a revealing choice about the type of leader he will be and that choice reinforces the Democrats’ argument that McCain is four more years of George Bush.

The Obama Campaign, though, has got it right. They have refused to take the bait and engage in a debate about experience. Instead, Obama has stayed on message, portraying Palin as supporting of the same tired Republican policies.

In the four days of the Democratic convention, the Obama campaign successfully shifted the conversation from their campaign to John McCain and George Bush. With a steady construction that included speeches from Hillary and Bill Clinton and ending with Obama’s acceptance, they framed the race as a referendum on the current state of affairs—do we want more of the same with John McCain or do we want a new direction with Obama-Biden.

McCain’s choice of Palin offered the Democrats a tar baby—an inexperienced candidate who is truly unprepared to lead but who could change the conversation to a debate about experience. So far, the Obama campaign has resisted the hitting the tar baby, if some of the pundits have not.

The road to victory for Obama is clear. He wins if the debate is about change. He loses is the debate experience.

As pollsters, pundits and others make their predictions, African-American turnout has been the focus of arguments and discussions. However, there is another side of the coin. What will turnout be like in the conservative Christian community?

Republican victory in the South has always relied on a substantial GOTV effort within the evangelical Christian community. This year seems different. Many of the right rejected John McCain in the primaries and some swore never to back him (Remember Limbaugh and Coulter disparaging the nominee?). Only in the last month have the leaders of the Christian right grudgingly agreed to back McCain --and still there are holdouts, the most prominent being James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

In addition, a new breed of evangelical leaders, including Rick Warren, has said that it’s time to move beyond the social issues (read anti-choice and homophobia) that have defined Christian conservatives. Instead, they urge their followers to focus on issues like global poverty and even environmental concerns. The old guard that stressed morality is either dying off or have lost credibility because of their own moral shortcomings.

The booming Clinton economy of the 1990s allowed the rank-and-file Christian conservatives to focus on issues that had little to do with their lives. They voted against choice, against gays, for guns and for prayer in schools. What they got was an ill-planned war, staggering gas prices and a crumbling economy. This year many of those voters are likely looking at their pocket books and some may be having buyer’s remorse.

I’m not suggesting that large numbers of Christian conservatives are going to rush to the polls to support Barack Obama. And I have the utmost respect for the GOP turnout machinery. However, I am suggesting that, this year, voting behavior might be different.

After 20 years of combative politics around social issues, Christian conservatives have made very little progress and new leaders say it’s time to refocus. John McCain has never inspired the community and, until a few weeks ago, was bashed by much of the leadership. Finally, the rank-and-file are predominantly middle and working class families who have been hit hard by economic policies promoted by the leaders they helped elect.

Like I said, I don’t think they will come out to vote Barack Obama. I’m just not sure that they will come out at all.

To comment, click here.

Now, it looks like the state will actually get serious attention in the general election. Last week, Barack Obama kicked off his general election campaign with a rally in Raleigh indicating that the Democrats will put the state in play this November. For the first time since 1992, we will see the presidential campaigns up close.

What's changed in the past 16 years? A lot.

For starters, a trend that began 40 years ago appears to have ended or at least slowed dramatically. From 1966 to 1996, Democratic registration dropped from 82% to 55% while Republican registration increased from 18% to 34%. At the same time, unaffiliated voters became a force gaining 11% of the registered voters. For the next ten years, Republican registration was relatively stagnant holding at 34% of the electorate. Democrats, though, continued to lose registrants to unaffiliated voters who, by 2007, made up 20% of the electorate.

During this period in North Carolina, Republican electoral strength grew. After few victories during the first 70 years of the 20^th century, the GOP has held one U. S. Senate seat continually since 1972 and has held the other for half of the time since 1976. Republican gains came when droves of Reagan Democrats crossed party lines in federal elections and from the growing number of unaffiliated voters, many of whom were former conservative Democrats who disagreed with Federal policies.

Since the 1960s, Democratic registration in North Carolina has dropped every year-until now. From April 2007 until last week, Democratic registration held steady at 45%, and even increased slightly. Meanwhile, unaffiliated voters increased to 21%, stealing from the Republicans, whose share dropped from 34% to 33%. In terms of real numbers, Democrats have added 145,000 voters to their roles while Republicans only added 30,000. An additional 129,500 people registered unaffiliated.

While the figures are somewhat skewed by the voter registration drives this spring, they may also signal that the transition from a one-party state is complete and finally reflected in registration numbers. In short, Democrats are far more likely to vote for Democrats, Republicans for Republicans while unaffiliated voters are the targets of both parties.

If so, Democrats now have a much wider Get-Out-the-Vote target than in the past. Traditionally, the party has focused its GOTV efforts on minorities and a few liberal enclaves. Now, they can focus on anyone who is registered as Democrat. In addition, persuasion resources such as television and radio can focus on the narrower group of unaffiliated voters instead of trying to hold registered Democrats in line.

The 2006 election offered additional evidence that the state's voting habits have changed. In Congressional elections, more voters across North Carolina voted for a Democrat than for a Republican for the first time in a generation. In addition, Democrats picked up one Congressional District when Heath Shuler defeated Charles Taylor. The party also came within 350 votes of capturing another when Larry Kissell almost upset Republican Robin Hayes.

The unaffiliated voters who now make up the vast majority of swing voters are no longer disaffected Democrats. They are predominantly younger suburban implants. Many of these voters arrived in the state voting Republican but found that they have more in common with the moderate Democrats who dominate state politics than the social conservatives who have led the state Republican Party.

To add to the changing demographics, North Carolina has one of the fastest growing Hispanic populations in the country. While only 50,000 are currently registered to vote, they make up over 4% of the population. Eventually they will be a powerful voting block and current Republican policies are driving them into Democratic ranks.

As Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean invested in a controversial 50-state strategy that he said would expand the electoral map. Barack Obama is now going to test it and North Carolina will be front and center. Whether Obama can win our state is yet to be seen, but with the current trends, spending the money to find out is a good idea, especially as an investment in the future. The state is one of the fastest growing in the nation and over the next few decades, Electoral College strength will move South and West. North Carolina is now part of the new battleground.

To comment, click here.