According to the Politico, this was somehow a surprise:A Nov. 1 survey of 400 18-to-29-year-olds showed the New York senator held a surprisingly large lead among young voters who identified themselves as Democrats. Clinton led her nearest competitors, with 54 percent, followed by her Illinois counterpart, with 24 percent, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, with 8.4 percent.Even the most liberal new math would still suggest the low end of this survey were between 8 and 11 during the finger wag and between 3 and 6 when Hillary stood by her man (sorta) on 60 Minutes.
Politico thinks this indicates a sort of pragmatism, completely at odds with Hillary's own radical past. They may be right. The only true revolutionaries in the field are Ron Paul (who is neither a Democrat nor Republican), Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich. Even 18 year olds know Dennis is a little out there. So what's attracting them to Hil? Is it the Botox? Nay--the likely nail strike:
Voters of all ages also cite President Bill Clinton’s tenure as a reason for supporting the former first lady.Hmm. Perhaps the young voters are impressed with the brilliance of their attempt to end-run term limits or perhaps they believe in the utopian world of Waldo:
Uriel Tapia, 23, of Columbus Junction, Iowa, said, “Both my parents went for [Bill] Clinton two times, and they’ve said good things about him. Just as she helped out during his presidency, he would be at her side.”
Maybe if Gore showed this much life in 2000 his presidency would be wrapping up soon, there would be peace on earth, and Ellen's hairdresser would have her dog back.Ms. Tapia went on to opine further:
“I don’t know that this country needs another man president.”Well, except for Bill. Or maybe Al. But anyone want to give odds on whether she'd say that if Condi Rice were running? Race is only an issue for older men afraid of losing power, right?
So OK, pragmatism explains it. Frankly, it's hard to understand how today's 'yoots' could have ever forgiven this:
No comments:
Post a Comment