A Transformational Moment

A troubled nation yearning for change has elected a Democratic president and a newly energized Congress. Transformation, we hope, is at hand--and The Nation is poised to participate in the process.

As a an independent voice for progressive values, The Nation--in the pages of the magazine and on this website--will continue to make bold proposals, ferret out the truth, expose corruption and hold our politicians accountable. And while we may not agree with everything President Obama does, we recognize that he has the capacity to be a transformative leader.

As of today, Campaign 08, the blog you've been following since the start of the Presidential race, undergoes its own transformation. Today Campaign 08 becomes State of Change, The Nation's new group blog focused on progressives, politics, the Obama Administration, and a nation in transition. Joining me as contributors to State of Change are Washington DC Editor Christopher Hayes, Washington DC Correspondent John Nichols, contributors Ari Berman, Ari Melber, Laura Flanders, Max Blumenthal and Leslie Savan. We're also thrilled that Publisher Emeritus Victor Navasky will weigh in from time to time. The impressive posts this team contributed throughout the campaign are archived on State of Change.

State of Change will supply a steady stream of news, analysis and commentary on politics, economics and grass-roots activism. For the past eighteen months you've followed every twist and turn of this historic election at Campaign '08. We hope you'll join us at State of Change as we get to work and chronicle this historic shift in American politics and leadership.

Comments (64)

1. Yes, actually...was wondering when we'd get a "title" change.

   BTW, Ms vanden Heuvel, note a lot of the "pure progressives" will debate if ANY "change" is occuring (aka Rahm Emmanuel, etc.).

   The whining has already begun.

   Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 1:02pm

2. "The Nations" contributors look like Obama's cabinet, WHITE people.

   Can we get some color up in here?

   Posted by bleedingheart at 11/07/2008 @ 1:07pm

3. Posted by bleedingheart at 11/07/2008 @ 1:07pm

   Poser, is this your new mode now? "Obama not good enough for 'us' pure progressives"?

   If so...you better mind your posts and not screw up and reveal your true ideology like you did during the campaign!

   Posted by Maskdelta at 11/07/2008 @ 1:37pm

4. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/07/2008 @ 1:11pm

   True, LL...after all, "Change is the essential process of all existence."

   ($5000 blog-bucks to who names the reference.)

   Posted by Maskdelta at 11/07/2008 @ 1:40pm

5. Posted by Maskdelta at 11/07/2008 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   yoda?

   lol...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2008 @ 1:54pm

6. Can we get some color up in here?

   Posted by bleedingheart at 11/07/2008 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   could we get some honesty from you?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2008 @ 1:58pm

7. "Change is the essential process of all existence."

   Spock?

   Shunryu Suzuki was once asked to summarize Buddhism in a sentence. The audience laughed at the impossibility of that challenge. But the Zen master had a ready answer. "Easy," he said. "Everything changes."

   Posted by mikecope at 11/07/2008 @ 2:01pm

8. that's why i laugh when there's talk of the status quo.

   everything i see is in the past.

   i live in the past of the future.

   anyhoo,

   what a bunch of jerks:

   "Rushing to ease endangered species rules before President Bush leaves office, Interior Department officials are attempting to review 200,000 comments from the public in just 32 hours, according to an e-mail obtained by the Associated Press.

   The Fish and Wildlife Service has called a team of 15 people to Washington this week to go through letters and online comments about a proposal to exclude greenhouse gases and the advice of federal biologists from decisions about whether dams, power plants and other federal projects could harm species. That would be the biggest change in endangered species rules since 1986.

   In an e-mail last week to Fish and Wildlife managers across the country, Bryan Arroyo, the head of the agency's endangered species program, said the team would work eight hours a day starting Tuesday to the close of business on Friday to sort through the comments."

   LAWYERS TO YOUR POSTS!!!!!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:04pm

9. he said. "Everything changes."

   Posted by mikecope at 11/07/2008 @ 2:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   like i said...yoda...

   lol

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2008 @ 2:04pm

10. eureka!!

    that's how we'll stimulate the economy.

    pass billions of really crappy laws so that millions of lawyers will be able to spread the wealth around.

    bush is genius.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:06pm

11. Posted by mikecope at 11/07/2008 @ 2:01pm

    We have a winner!

    The classic episode "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield"...starring Frank Gorshin in that most "alien" of make-ups....half-black/half-white!

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 2:07pm

12. HEY,

    how about a TRANSFORMATIONAL BLOG PAGE that reloads to the same TRANSFORMATIONAL BLOG PAGE?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:07pm

13. ($5000 blog-bucks to who names the reference.)

    Posted by Maskdelta at 11/07/2008 @ 1:40pm

    my knowledge is GOOGLEPLEXIAN!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:08pm

14. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:07pm |

    AKA "Don't fix it, JOAN GOODALL...if it ain't broke!"

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 2:09pm

15. change of state?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:09pm

16. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:09pm

    "steady state" versus "expanding Universe"???

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 2:11pm

17. we'll here's hopin' for some sublimation.

    8 years of plasma have been quite tiring.

    73 DAYS 21 Hrs 47 Min 39.8 Sec

    73 DAYS 21 Hrs 47 Min 22.4 Sec

    73 DAYS 21 Hrs 47 Min 09.1 Sec

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:13pm

18. ya' made a funny, son....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:13pm

19. from chimps to blogmeistress.....

    amazing.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:16pm

20. Awesome! I look forward to it. Heck, I'll even bookmark it.

    Posted by smmerino at 11/07/2008 @ 3:27pm

21. Can we get some color up in here? Posted by bleedingheart at 11/07/2008 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    how do you suggest we do that? affirmative action?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 4:44pm

22. the high opinion you have of yourself is undeserved, MBB

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 4:46pm

23. (Also, I'd like for you to admit that my logical arguments demonstrating that current marriage statutes are not unconstitutional are irrefutable.)

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/07/2008 @ 4:26pm

    Soo your saying currently that allowing straight people to get married only is not unconstitutional? Equal Protection states that everyone should be equally protected under the law. You don't force churches to do anything but if the court is marrying people they have to allow you to marry anyone you want. If there are certain tax incentives alloted to those who are married you have to give those to anyone no matter who they marry. The current laws are essentially the same as saying a black person isn't allowed to marry a white person.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/07/2008 @ 5:11pm

24. You challenged me by saying marriage laws are unconstituional.

    I said no such thing. you have me confused with someone else.

    intellectual capcity ? hahahahaha what city is that?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 6:17pm

25. Darin (it's a login problem...fixed now)

    Now.....tell me...is it Constitutional for states to ban "one black man" from marrying "one white woman"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 8:07pm

26. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/07/2008 @ 5:55pm

    That's the problem. While I agree with you we ought as well just work to change the legislation. You can make the case that this law IS unConstitutional because it only affects those who are gay or lesbian. The law that you can't marry your sister is Unconstitutional as well because it is not the governments place to tell you who you can and can not marry. The law that you cannot marry someone underage is not UnConstitutional because someone under 18 can not enter into a legally binding contract therefore they can not be wed so with or without the law they would not be able to be truly married. Any law that only takes away rights from one group is considered unconstitutional in violating the laws of Equal Protection. Just because the wording is careful makes no difference, you can still make the argument that it only affects one group and is therefore Unconstitutional.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/07/2008 @ 8:19pm

27. Now.....tell me...is it Constitutional for states to ban "one black man" from marrying "one white woman"? Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 8:07pm

    Not if it says that no one of opposite races may marry apparently according to Darin.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/07/2008 @ 8:20pm

28. It discriminates on the basis of race.

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/07/2008 @ 10:05pm

    So it's okay to discriminate on gender but not race.

    For instance, if I said "Is it Constitutional for states to ban "one black WOMAN" from marrying "one white woman"? ....what would your answer be?

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 10:29pm

29. The state's compelling interest in civil marraige is to provide the best environment for raising children. All other things being equal, a child reaised by his biological parents will be better off than an alternative.

    to follow this logic would mean that a barren woman could not get married. nor an infertile man.

    this would also bar all adoptions

    that's obviously nonsense, and so is your argument here.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 10:40pm

30. a couple getting married would have to swear to have children, which is obviously not the case.many couples get married without the intention of having children.

    your argument has more holes than swiss cheese.

    what do they call swiss cheese in Switzerland?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 10:42pm

31. another situation. say a man or a woman have a child in marriage. say one of the parents dies. the other spouse falls in love with a person of the same sex. they want to raise the child together. can they get married?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 10:45pm

32. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/07/2008 @ 10:38pm

    Show where "compelling interest of the state" and/or "procreation and raising of children"...

    is in the U.S. Constitution.

    I've already shown where "equal protection under the law" is (14th Amendment)...

    show your supporting Constitutional element.

    (BTW, so according to your standard, it would be Constitutional to ban an infertile man or woman from a marriage, wouldn't it?)

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 10:59pm

33. Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 10:45pm

    The scenarios aren't important, JOHANNES....

    stick with the U.S. Constitution.

    Do that and Darin has no case...just mythic "state's interests" and "tradition"...neither of which are Constitutional law.

    and, uh, it's the CONSTITUTION that "counts"!

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 11:00pm

34. KVH...

    what is the difference between state of change and the notion now?

    huh?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/07/2008 @ 11:53pm

35. True, LL...after all, "Change is the essential process of all existence." ($5000 blog-bucks to who names the reference.) Posted by Maskdelta at 11/07/2008 @ 1:40pm Isaac Newton or nothing! *gollum*

    And I liked LL's post. More cheerful than I've ever heard the man!

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/08/2008 @ 04:05am

36. LAWYERS TO YOUR POSTS!!!!! Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:04pm Sea lawyers especially needed: In a November special issue of the journal Ecology, a group of scientists report that if current patterns of change in the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans continue, alterations of ocean circulation could occur on a global scale, with potentially dramatic implications for the world's climate and biosphere.

    Charles Greene of Cornell University and colleagues reconstructed the patterns of climate change in the Arctic from the Paleocene epoch to the present. Over these 65 million years, the Earth has undergone several major warming and cooling episodes, which were largely mitigated by the expansion and contraction of sea ice in the Arctic.

    When the Arctic cools and ice expands, the increase ice cover increases albedo. The resulting increased reflection of the sun leads to global cooling. Likewise, when ice sheets and sea ice contract and expose the darker-colored land or ocean underneath, heat is absorbed, accelerating climate warming. Currently, the Earth is in the midst of an interglacial period, characterized by retracted ice sheets and warmer temperatures. - From Green Car Congress post

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/08/2008 @ 04:13am

37. That's albedo, NOT albido.

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/08/2008 @ 04:15am

38. Since gays do not reproduce naturally, excluding them from marriage doesn't hurt the state's case for a compelling interest so it is not unconstitutional. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/07/2008 @ 10:21pm what about adoption, D? Isn't it better for a given up birthed child to be adopted by two loving gays committed to a parental relationship BETTER THAN a (what on Earth was the name of that little girl they found in a suitcase in a Washington Heights park about 20 years ago - starved to death by a man and a woman) tragedy of neglect and abuse?

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/08/2008 @ 04:33am

39. That's albedo, NOT albido. Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/08/2008

    Ever regret a post?

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/08/2008 @ 04:36am

40. Ok trollboy. I took you seriously for a few minutes but no more. you don't answer my posts. you are only interested in hearing the sound of your own voice. basta.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2008 @ 09:37am

41. "Marriage is about first creating, then raising children."

    that is just absurd. many married couples are unable or unwilling to have children. conversely many couples have children and do not get married.

    "When marriage laws were written, they didn't even have rubbers"

    this is also nonsense. prophylactics were well known in antiquity.

    you Trollboy you just don't know very much. about anything.

    ultimately I feel sorry for you.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2008 @ 10:11am

42. Okay, emile (or is it JR? I lose track of who became who.)

    may I remind you that you changed your nom de plume, so stop harping on that.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2008 @ 10:12am

43. every conceivable situation starting with barren women and ending with men with erectile dysfunction.

    again your ignorance is staggering. male infertility has nothing to do with ED. one example, in vitro.

    you can have an erection an arm long, if your sperm count is too low you can't have kids.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2008 @ 10:16am

44. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/08/2008 @ 09:47am

    Darin, "Jim Crow" was "legal" in various states...

    it did NOT mean it was Constitutional (U.S.).

    BTW, don't you think it strange that you find "state compelling interest" in preventing incestuous marriage...to prevent production of in-bred children....

    but you say the state has a compelling interest in keeping marriage between a man and woman....for producing children.

    So marriage is basically about the State controlling the means or "quality" of the children produced?

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2008 @ 10:21am

45. unlike you and others here I have never been banned. that should tell you something.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2008 @ 10:30am

46. Marriage is about control of property. That is the only interest the State has in the union of two people.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2008 @ 10:30am

47. Sheeps bladders are for earthquake control,

    [Early condoms were made from whatever man could get his hands on. The Ancient Romans made condoms from goats' bladders, the Egyptians went for linen sheaths to protect from tropical diseases, the Japanese had condoms made from leather and tortoiseshell, and the Chinese wrapped oiled silk paper round the penis to prevent infection.

    In 1564 the book De Morbo Gallico, a treatise on syphilis1 by the Italian anatomist Gabriello Fallopio (1523 - 1562), was posthumously published. In the book, Fallopio claimed to have invented a linen sheath which, when dipped in a solution of salt or herbs, formed a protection against the disease. The sheath fitted over the glans and under the foreskin, and was probably pretty impractical and highly uncomfortable, but it wasn't belong before Hercules Saxonia described a larger sheath, still made of linen, that covered the entire penis.

    The next development in the world of disease prevention was the one that gave the world the word 'condom': the sheep-gut sheath was said to have been invented by the almost certainly apocryphal Dr Condom (also known as Quondam or Cundum). The earliest proof of animal-gut condoms was discovered in excavations at Dudley Castle in the West Midlands in England, where the garderobe (the lavatory), known to have been filled in 1647]

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2008 @ 10:37am

48. 11,000 gay people were married under California's progressive law. DARIN, how did you suffer? Was your marriage threatened? How did California suffer? What is the damage?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2008 @ 10:40am

49. hehe, that was post "69". How appropriate is that! cunnilingus and fellatio used to be banned by law, now we know that it is no harm to society to allow consenting adults to pleasure each other as they see fit. Who the hell are you to tell people who they should marry or where they should put their fun parts? The arguments made by your "side" are the same arguments mad against inter-racial marriage in the 50's. Time is going to prove you as wrong as those Neanderthals. I predict a gay president in 2024.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2008 @ 10:44am

50. I have to run, but a few of questions for Darin:

    Do you think gay people should be able to own property?

    Do you think the Sate should remove Mary Cheneys child from her?

    Does being gay automatically make one a bad parent? If so, why?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2008 @ 10:55am

51. Judicial assault?

    Glad to read that you are not against gay marriage, Darin. "Judicial assault" is also called "successful litigation". It is only called Assault or "activist" when one disagrees with the result.

    Ta ta for now.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2008 @ 10:59am

52. Gabriello Fallopio (1523 - 1562),

    very nice, thank you. he had the fallopian tubes named after him.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2008 @ 11:05am

53. Marriage is about control of property. That is the only interest the State has in the union of two people. Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2008 @ 10:30am | ignore this person | warn this person

    in a nutshell

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2008 @ 11:06am

54. what do they call swiss cheese in Switzerland?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 10:42pm

    Ementhaler.

    Posted by sloper at 11/08/2008 @ 11:08am

55. One can't change unless and until one understands where one is-- how can one make a decision to move in a specific direction until one knows what one is moving away from or to. Could be making things worse by changing in the wrong direction moving blindly, reactionary, frayed nerves and all. Not at all Obama's style.

    This nation has one map.

    Before any 'real/representational' change actually occurs-- I see lots of simultaneous investigations into hidden deals, monetary worm holes, illegal and unconstitutional.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/08/2008 @ 11:27am

56. The disagreement is over how to achieve marriage equality.-----Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/08/2008 @ 10:53am

    But Darin, again, isn't that like telling African-Americans in the 1950s "Look, of COURSE I believe in civil rights...but the general public in the South just isn't ready for it. Wait until the Southern kids grow up, they're more tolerant than their elders....THEN push for civil rights!

    Why I bet, if you just wait until the 1970s, maybe 1980s...Negroes won't have ANY trouble being allowed to vote and by 1990, you probably will stop seeing 'Whites Only' water fountains...

    but don't get pushy RIGHT now in 1957, or it'll backfire on you!"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2008 @ 2:05pm

57. Kinda like Billary and McPalin telling Barrack to wait... it's just not time yet.

    NOT.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/08/2008 @ 2:19pm

58. It's absolutely absurd to believe that words are indicative of race.

    Posted by Greytdog at 11/08/2008 @ 4:12pm

59. Darin, what the judge did was rule that gay marriage was not unconstitutional. NO ONE was FORCED to go out to change the state constitution. Also, the Prop 8 campaign went out and spread fear amongst the electorate. They said it would cause harm to children, with no basis for that claim. They said it would harm hetero marriages, with no basis for that claim.

    What prop 8 did was enshrine a "taking" into the California constitution.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/09/2008 @ 08:51am

60. HELLO ALL: I HAVE 2 QUESTIONS FOR U ALL:

    First question: Is it true that US government waged a war on Irak on behalf of Israel and also to get its oil reserves by Big Oil Lobbies?

    Second question: Is it true that US troops waged a war on Afhganistan to protect the US government drug smuggling business. Remember that the US government is a narco-state

    .

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/09/2008 @ 11:16am

61. HELLO ALL: I HAVE 2 QUESTIONS FOR ALL:

    First question: Is it true that US government waged a war on Irak on behalf of Israel and also to get its oil reserves by Big Oil Lobbies?

    Second question: Is it true that US troops waged a war on Afhganistan to protect the US government drug smuggling business. Remember that the US government is a narco-state

    .

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/09/2008 @ 11:18am

62. Hello Katrina vanden Heuvel: I voted for Obama, I think that Obama is the greatest thing that has happened to USA since its foundation indeed. Obama is the most progressive president that this country has had. We are at a truely historical time. All of us in the progressive left, should participate in Obama's government by giving the new government support, tips at fullfilling Obama's goal of transforming this country into a true participative-democratic socialist country of the XXI Century.

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/09/2008 @ 12:34pm

63. Darin the reason people voted it down was not because they felt assaulted. Read the responses of voters. The reason they voted against it is because the those who had religious objection lied and said that if they voted NO gays would start to indoctrinate their children with their homosexual lives. They said it would be taught in schools. Which of course is a lie. Funny to know that all these church groups relied on a complete fabrication to push through their agenda. The most effective tactic was telling people that their children would be indoctrinated with homosexuality. It would have passed if the people did not believe the flat out lie perpetuated by the Yes on 8 movement.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/09/2008 @ 2:31pm

64. Ementhaler. Posted by sloper at 11/08/2008 @ 11:08am | ignore this person | warn this person

    correct, but you're missing an M

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 12:48pm