I lucked out: I'd describe everyone on the subcommittee as extremely progressive, with the exception of our New York guy, who was progressive in general but would probably describe himself as moderate on fiscal issues. Nonetheless, he was enthusiastic about all of the pro-labor language that the Michigan delegate and I proposed (support for the right to organize; opposition to restrictions on card check recognition; opposition to "paycheck protection" and "right to work" legislation), as well as a raise on the cap for paying into social security, opposition to the FTAA language as currently written, and strong language on opening up legal immigration channels, so if that's what passes as "moderate" in the YDA, then I'm happy to say that this is a pretty progressive group of young people.

The Platform Committee of the YDA has been in session since 9am this morning. "Party Structure" was the first section we tackled. Jason Paul, from Connecticut, is the National High School Liaison (and a blogger under the name "Democratic Avenger"), and he drafted these clauses (with my abridgements), which has been passed and is now in the platform pending ratification:

• We will act to implement the 50 State Strategy....
  
• We will act to recruit 435 Democratic candidates for Congress and all 100 seats in the Senate....
  
• We will act to build up the Young Democrats by running young candidates in local and state office races, so that no election goes uncontested....
  
• We will request to be included at all levels of the Democratic Party, including state and local executive committees, allowing the voice of the Young Democrats and future leaders of the Democratic Party to be heard and listened to.
  
• We will act by never conceding that there are races that cannot be won, or issues that should be avoided, or by taking a step back from this vital fight for our nation's future.

Most of the platform uses words like "support" and "believe," so the fact that these clauses are couched in the term "act" is pretty encouraging.

Following that discussion, we had a pretty lively debate on "Rural Issues." The intensity of the debate reflected the primacy of the town-country divide at the heart of so much of American politics today. The two major controversies were about religion and guns - no surprise there.

Regarding religion, the question was whether to include a statement affirming the value of faith, or more specifically, whether such a statement should be considered a "rural issue." Voices from some (not all) of the rural states argued that we have to convey a strong message to rural Americans that Democrats respect faith. A few of the delegates from urban areas took strong exception to the idea that rural areas had a monopoly on the question of faith, which they argued was implied by the inclusion of such a clause in the "Rural Issues" section of the platform.  The clause got nixed in the end.

Regarding guns, the question was whether to include a plank affirming a right to use guns for hunting and sport. This one was modified but remained in the platform, though there's language about gun control in the "Urban Issues" section of the platform and will be debated later today.

That brings us to lunchtime, which we're going to work through. More to come.