"gullible and historically ignorant" just about sums up almost everyone I know, especially when it comes to politics. It doesn't make them bad people, no sir. But really, is this an inaccurate description? I think it rings true, and I think its even more true of young people. -(again it doens't make them bad) - Taking issue with BC's particular conclusion is one thing but to pretend that Americans are politically and historically savvy is just describing some other universe!

Clinton is just trying to cover the fact that he betrayed large swaths of the Democratic Party and we remember that even if Bush has been horrible (just because the flu is not as bad as pneumonia does not mean the former is good or not unpleasant).

"Any argument that older voters are necessarily wiser is bizarre to begin with..."

You mean that the experience of watching national affairs and learning about the limitations of people and institutions as you grow older is worthless? You might want to reconsider your words.

I'm forty. I remember the Clinton years pretty darn well. Coulda been better, coulda been worse. I remember a good economy, a more stable international situation, the country more respected and influential abroad. I also remember Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, impeachment, "I think I raised your taxes too much too", and James Carville and Mary Matalin becoming near-inescapable media-political figures.

More's the point, I remember the last eight years, and Hillary Clinton's tenure in the Senate. That's why I find it not just irritating but offensive when I'm told that Hillary Clinton is a "fighter" who's been "fighting for people like" me for thirty-five years.

"Firstly, it paints younger voters are gullible and historically ignorant."

Well . . . they ARE. If they knew anything about the '90's, they'd remember Hillary's class and courage, and realize that Obama's talk about "bipartisanship" is doomed because of when Clinton tried it.

"Second, Bill Clinton carried the youth vote in 1992. In fact, in 1992, a higher percentage of young people turned out to vote than had in decades, and they voted for Clinton more often than not."

Irrelevant what voters in 1992 thought. Clinton wasn't running against anyone who was banking on memories of the 1970's.

"Overall, younger voters are much more likely to self-identify as Democrats than are older voters."

Irrelevant. Both Hillary and Obama are Democrats, right?

"Any argument that older voters are necessarily wiser is bizarre to begin with."

Bizarre?? Possibly questionable, but not bizarre.

A stupid, stupid post. Please take this one down.

I am in my mid thirties and I clearly remember the Clinton years. I was all for Bill back then and felt that he was unfairly attacked during the Monica scandal. Just because this time around, the young voters do not support a Clinton, does not make them gullible. I think they can see who is inspiring and who is engaged in dirty politics.

If they knew anything about the '90's,they'd remember Hillary's class and courage,

So we should vote for Hillary because she maintained a stiff upper lip when her husband humiliated her?

Thanks, but I'll judge her by her record as a Senator, and vote for Obama.

Jim,
By "class and courage" I mean Hillary's trashing by the right-wing smear machine, a trial that Obama in his short, unchallenged, charmed career has never had to face.

If you remembered the '90's (instead of more recent regurgiations of it by the right-wing press) you'd remember *that*.

Okay. We'll build a statue to her noble and heroic tenure as first lady.

And judge her record in the Senate as she asks for my vote for the presidency.

And so I'm still supporting Obama.

This post was laughable--at least to anyone who was around in 1992. And since we're taking a trip in the "way back machine", I will share my thoughts about Clinton's presidency.

* I was not a supporter of his in 1992. His good ole boy style turned me off, and I thought Paul Tsongas had a sensible approach to dealing with issues.

* I did come to admire his tenacity on the campaign trail; when Ross Perot was sucking up the media oxygen, Clinton kept plugging along.

* His speech at the convention broke some old Democrat orthodoxy which had annoyed me for years (especially his acknowledgment of the need for fiscal responsibility)

* During his presidency, I read all these pundits telling me about how Clinton was so dishonest, sleazy, etc; turns out, they made most of that s**t up! (Read David Brock's books or "The Clinton Wars" for documented rebuttals--not to mention the only thing Ken Starr's 40 million dollar witch hunt came up with was tawdry sex with an intern)

* So after all the lies put out against the Clintons, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when another "shocking revelation" appears.

* And BTW, if they are such nasty people, how the hell did they raise such a graceful, intelligent, and dignified daughter?

"Okay. We'll build a statue to her noble and heroic tenure as first lady."

Well, I hit a bulls-eye with that one. Jim knows nothing about Hillary and the '90's.

Let me *start* with two phrases:

1. Health Care
2. "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child".

Those wishing to educate yourselves, google these and start reading. There's an awful lot to read.

The problem with the Clinton era was you had to constantly defend *them,* rather than (actually) fighting the right. Billary mostly ended up fighting the right for their own careers as politicians, as seen in their endless giveaways to the right on policy. Young and old Obama supporters are right to try to find something else.

Bill is right to the extent that Obama is going to end up in a similar position. I guess he thinks young people don't recognize that. One Billary argument *has* been that they already know what they're "in for." It seems to me some older Democrats who pay attention to politics buy that argument and others simply don't trust them not to continue where they left off.

They did put things in place that only came to fruition in the Bush II era and Bush is getting credit for them along with his own egregious trespasses. Why let the fox back in the henhouse when you already know it's a fox, I say.