As go the young, so go the futures of political parties.

[VenusRising]

edited for better title

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-karabel15apr15,0,7137754.story

The young and the restless

A new generation drawn to politics by Obama could just as easily become alienated.
By Jerome Karabel
April 15, 2008
As go the young, so go the futures of political parties.

In the fierce and seemingly endless battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the enthusiastic involvement of an unprecedented number of young people -- roughly 14% of Democratic primary voters, up from 9% in 2004 -- presents the Democrats with an extraordinary opportunity to reshape U.S. politics in the coming years. It is theirs to seize or to squander.

Studies over the last half a century have repeatedly shown that voter preferences among most people in their teens and 20s have not yet crystallized -- a pattern referred to by social scientists as the "impressionable years" hypothesis. Yet, in response to the key historical events a generation encounters in late adolescence and early adulthood, young people begin to develop more stable political beliefs and party preferences. More often than not, those party allegiances -- even the habit of voting -- will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

<snip>

The future political loyalties of today's 18- to 29-year-olds -- a huge group of 42 million -- are still very much up for grabs. Nonetheless, their preferences in the primaries so far are clear. Among this group, Obama has won 22 of the 25 Democratic primaries for which exit poll data are available. In 13 of these states (including Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, Georgia, Illinois and Maryland), Obama won by margins of greater than 30 points. Even in the states Clinton most recently won, Ohio and Texas, he led among 18- to 29-year-olds by 26 and 19 points, respectively. In fact, were 18- to 29-year-olds alone to decide the Democratic nominee, Obama would win nationwide by a landslide of at least 20 points.

<snip>

In Obama, the Democratic Party has a potential nominee who offers a unique opportunity to bring the younger generation firmly into the political process, to make many of its members lifelong Democrats and perhaps to lay the groundwork for a historic realignment on the scale of Roosevelt and Reagan

Much more at link.

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. That's a major risk with Obama, as well as opportunity.

His coalition is big, but also fragile for a number of reasons. You have youth, far left, disillusioned republicans who aren't very left at all. Hillary Clinton has been a huge unifying factor for them, but once she's gone things could destabilize, if the conversation turns to policy and the differences become clearer. On the flip side, if he can cement the coalition, he can change the face of American politics.

[VenusRising]

2. I don't think things will destabilize if he wins the nomination.

The threat of McCain is too scary on top of the fact that people are really stirred up and willing to work their butts off for Obama. I don't think that Hillary can inspire the same activism in her campaign that Obama has already established and developed.

I'm almost positive he will be our nominee, and I think he is laying a great foundation for people being involved in their government.

I hope I'm right.

[H2O Man]

28. Right.

Things are not going to destabilize when he gets the nomination. It will be the exact opposite. Young people are not supporting Obama because they are primarily opposed to Hillary. It is because he represents hope for today and the future, as opposed to the policies of depression and death that the Bush-Cheney administration represents. McCain is absolutely the personification of a third Bush term, and he is the real opposition.

Clinton plays a minor role in the young folks' support for Obama. Her role is more like Hubert Humphrey's in the 1960 democratic primary. The real contest was against Nixon. And JFK's appeal to the younger generation wasn't based on their perception of Humphrey.

[napoleon_in_rags]

35. True. His great strength has clearly been in bringing in the new blood.

And as the person who responds to you says, I also don't think this youth vote is unified by Hillary, but youth can be unstable in their own ways, they can burn out or get distracted. I personally don't think that will happen, his more tenuous areas are in his ex-republican supporters, and religious left.

[Solon]

3. I just turned 30 a couple of months ago, so I don't know if my opinion matters here...

but most of my friends and my sister are younger than me, and I'm rather worried that they are being set up to be disillusioned in the same manner I was back in the 1990s. Whether this is some new "movement" towards greater voter participation among the youth of America remains to be seen. Frankly speaking, I think if it is, its going to be temporary, at best. The problem is that while it laudable that so many people are inspired by a candidate in the race for the presidency, I don't think its tempered by neither experience nor reality. The fact is that Obama, regardless of his oratory skills, is at best, a centrist politician, and as such, is going to disappoint people of damn near all political persuasions, regardless of their age.

Right now most young people are anti-Bush, and firmly in that camp, to the point where they will vote Democratic, at least this year. But, when the reality sets in afterwards, what will be the result? Disillusionment and abandonment, or atonement? The Democratic party, regardless of its so called "progressive" credentials, isn't exactly the party of liberal ideals, the words are not followed by actions. Obama is also lauded as the "progressive" candidate, even though this is inaccurate, to say the least. The fact is that Obama is a relatively new face on the scene of national politics, and that in itself is enough to excite the younger generations.

This wouldn't be a bad thing if he also brought out new and fresh ideas to the national scene as well, or, at the very least, talked about issues of substance, with consistency, and the willpower to see them through. The problem is he hasn't, not yet, and I'm afraid, not ever. The coalition his candidacy is building will most likely last as long as there is an identifiable opponent on the scene, whether Hillary or McCain, but no Candidate can keep such a coalition going without some definable substance behind them.

Is Obama going to be a complete disaster as a President? I don't think so, but he's not going to be groundshaking either, more a President of the Bill Clinton variety, rather than FDR. Hell, if he became the Reagan variety, then my predictions come true, how many people were disillusioned by that senile old fool?

[VenusRising]

4. I think he has talked about issues of substance with consistency.

He's stayed on message about issues every time he's asked a question or gives an interview. He's also said in every stump speech that I have heard that it's not going to be easy, and the people are going to have to push for what they want. If he continues to talk to the American people in an honest way, even if it's not the most favorable language, they will respond and stay active even if it's just pestering their representatives before a vote. I think they will do that if they get a leader who gives them the truth. It's working out for him with this "bitter" nonsense. The more I watch him the more I'm convinced he can keep people engaged. YMMV.

[Solon]

5. The only speech that has impressed me so far is the one about Wright...

But, as far as I can tell, in most speeches and presentations, he's all things to all people, its not so much that he's inconsistent but rather that he changes the use of language to appear to present himself in a different light to different audiences.

Then again, as I said before, and I'll say again, what I care about are policies that will work, and frankly Obama falls far short on those. It doesn't really matter how pretty a speech is if the ideas behind it suck ass, to put it bluntly. It wouldn't be so bad if I thought that Obama was just pretending to be a moderate now and going to go left when entering office, but I strongly doubt that. He has plenty of positions and policies that he has presented on his website, and occasionally in speeches, however, most of them seem to just be too little too late.

It may be that I'm just burned out on these professional class of politicians who seem to only look out for themselves. I just don't see Obama any different in this regard than any other politician.

Oh, and I HATE, absolutely HATE, this need for people to have a leader, people, lead your own lives, and HIRE the politicians to do their jobs, they are to follow YOU the voter, you should not have to follow THEM.

[VenusRising]

6. I will say

I think that this primary season is far too drawn out. It gives us too much down time for these inane snipes between candidates. I know that I've felt burned our during this process a few times, and it's not over until June. Ugh!!! x(

[Solon]

9. I don't even care about that stuff...

Not really, the two primary candidates are so similar that people are fighting over style rather than substance, indeed the substantial stuff is rarely talked about at all. Indeed this primary has been over for me for quite some time, since Kucinich quit, the only candidate I thought worth voting for on his own merits and positions, rather than voting against the greater evil. In fact, all my life, I've never voted for Democrats so much as voted against Republicans, with choices like what we end up with, that's the only choice we have left.

The fact of the matter is that electing a Democrat into the White House is not the end of a struggle, but the beginning of one. And that struggle is to drag that centrist piece of shit to the left, kicking and screaming. The fact is I'm not optimistic about this happening, even if Obama is in the White House, after all, he's got his job, for at least 4 years, why the hell would he listen to anyone on the left? I mean, seriously, what are we going to do, not vote for him the next time around?

I just hate our political system, the 2 parties basically poison each other with their insipid sniping at each other, and not even over the most important issues. Hell, we have the most hated president in the history of the country literally polarizing this nation against him, and even then, the Democrats can't even find the spine to impeach his sorry ass for the many crimes he is guilty of. Its fucking pathetic, is what it is.

[VenusRising]

10. Whoa.

:wow:

Too much hate for me.

I posted this article to be an inspiration that Obama was bringing new voters, especially the young, into the Democratic fold.

[Solon]

12. And the question I have is what is the goal for bringing these new voters into the Party?

If its just to win elections for people with "D"'s after their names, then I don't see what's so good about that, other than preventing Republicans from being elected into power. If its to change the character of the party, to shift it to the left, then I'm all for it. I just doubt the motivations of the candidate who is inspiring this change.

[VenusRising]

13. Considering what republicans have done over the past 7 years

I would say that preventing them from gaining any power would be a good thing. I don't think Al Gore or John Kerry would have gone to war in Iraq or spied on the American people or tortured prisoners or murdered political prisoners or lied to Congress or repealed habeus corpus. Those are kind of important issues to me.

[Solon]

14. And I'm not suggesting they would have either, at least not on the same scale as Bush...

but, and this is historically true, the United States has been in constant conflict and war with one foe after another for well over 100 years, it frankly didn't matter whether a Democrat or a Republican was in the White House. Only one of these wars could be what we would call "defensive" in the past century or so, the rest, well, let's just say we didn't conquer the Philippines just to protect California, we did it to get rubber.

Indeed, in general terms, not specific conflicts, like the Iraq war, which is partisan itself, there is very little substantial difference between the Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy, which is generally defined as doing what's good for our or our allies' corporations by any means necessary. Indeed, the Iraq war isn't the first war we had over oil, after all, there were numerous conflicts the United States started over that resource in the past, going back a century.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Amazing how two posters thus far could read this awesome article

and make it appear as though it was a negative for the Democratic party to increase our voting power.

One states that it is Hillary unifying the youth along with others around Obama, and give Obama very little credit.

The other poster predicts that there is a possibility that the youth will become "disallusioned" with Obama as a President.

So here's what I say.

Obama is the reason that these young people are excited. They will work for him, and they will support him through the General. They have helped his fundraising number like no one's business. They know exactly what they are doing, these youth.

In terms of being disallusioned, certainly he states over and over again that he is not perfect, and that it will be hard, and they have to stay involved. He is not kidding, and they most likely understand it better than they are given credit for.

Obama has been underestimated time and time again. Folks keep falling in that trap again and again.

It is a people movement...because the time is now. Murdock is now sitting on the board of AP News, and so, we cannot wait any longer to get our government back. period. The young people understand that better than most; maybe because they want there to be something left for them. That's who they are going to hang in and participate for; their own future.

[VenusRising]

8. That's what I got out of the article, too, Frenchie.

I'm glad someone else read it the same way I did.

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

22. Well some folks don't really want to get it.......

Natural contrarians are found around every street corners. Some call them cynics or naysayers. They have the right to be that way considering how our politics have gone. The thing is, though, although these folks can easily find flaws with everything, they can't tell you anything much more. They can analyze every crook and crannies of why this can't work, why it can't be done, and how this is a problem, blah blah blah, etc., etc....

Where they get lost is when you asked what would they do. Then the answers end up either unrealistic and not really pragmatic, and their proposed methods have flaws themselves.

Kind of funny, IMO....but good exercises.

[Solon]

11. If the goal is to only make the Democrats win, and nothing else...

then why bother in the first place, because they'll give you the "courtesy" of a reach around when they fuck you from behind?

I'm not minimizing what that reach around means, in a figurative sense, but the fact is we are still fucked.

Even if the younger generations increase their participation in the Democratic party, will that mean its overall character as a center-right political party will change in any substantial way? For some reason, I doubt it, the Democratic party has "spurts" of being leftist, for short periods of time, but they are usually short lived, though some of their effects are far reaching. They are usually inspired by really bad crises in the nation's history, such as the Great Depression, and we may be reaching a similar point in history again. However, will that mean those lifelong Dems will continue the energy needed to actually bring about progressive change for the rest of their lives? No, it will not, history has shown that to be true.

[FrenchieCat]

17. You over-analyze what is truly much more simple than that......

So I'll leave you at it...

In order to govern from the left, that's how it starts; electing Democrats. period.

[Solon]

18. The Democratic party is to the left compared to the Republicans...

That much is true, but that doesn't make them representative of leftist ideals, at best they are a center-right party. Moderate Conservative, in other words. How do you govern from the left when the party in question isn't on that side of the aisle in the first place?

Have you even seen the most recent party platform by any chance?

[FrenchieCat]

20. We are working on that.....as it is part of the goal......I''m sure.....

because Obama's policies are to the left, if you haven't noticed....even if some are not as far to the Left as you would like to see. It took 25 years for the Right to drag us to the center leaning right, and a big part of how that happened was with the pandering of a part of our party to the Right Wing. That would be the DLC, who have always believed that money is what made Republicans win elections; corporate backing, that is. Obama has already changed that more than anyone before him. That is part of what makes him more of a leader than some of the others. He has our money, not corporate money in his coffers. He doesn't have to bend over and let some corporate masters screw us over. That's what makes him frightening to the old guard; he ain't gotta to kiss no ass.....and instead can listen to us, and do our bidding. Without the conflict of being forced to do what Corporate interests want because of the money that they yield as power, and which oftentime want policies enacted that are in direct conflict with what is good for the common man, not only does Obama win, but most importantly, we win.

And no, he's not a savior, but he's better than anything seen in recent times, in terms of the chance he gives us in shaking the corporate powers off our backs before it is too late.

Murdock is now sitting on the board of AP newswire, meaning, we don't have much more time before it won't matter what we "do", we will be totally powerless to change anything. That's why the time is now, and why Obama refers often to the "urgency of now" and that's why the talk is about "change", and not experience.

Read about Murdock here in breaking news, cause this just happened: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3268545&mesg_id=3268545

[Solon]

23. Obama is barely sqeaking past Hillary on the leftist quota...

and that isn't saying much, most of his policy positions are solidly in the center of American politics, not to the left, and some are even more conservative than Hillary's, such as on Health Care. Not that I support Hillary's plan, it sucks damn near as bad as his does. But to claim that he's anywhere close to the left on the issues is foolhardy. The fact that he's pledged not to take corporate money is laudable, but, ultimately, they will sink their claws into him soon enough, if not directly, then indirectly through Congress, most likely. Corruption runs so deep in Washington D.C. that no one who works there is immune.

[FrenchieCat]

24. This applies......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5525429&mesg_id=5525935

[Solon]

26. Yeah, I'm a cynic, what do you expect, I'm a Gen Xer...

However, beyond the fact that I'm a cynic, there is also a fundamental difference between myself and Obama, let me see if I can illustrate it for you.

I'm here:



And Obama is over here:



With, oddly enough, most of the Democratic and Republican candidates. Hell, I even consider Nader to be a Moderate! There is very little I agree with Obama on.

[Zodiak]

33. Correction: electing non-DLC Democrats

Electing more DLC Democrats will definitely pull this party further to the right, making governing from the left even more improbable.

Just something to bear in mind.

[Two Americas]

15. that is the problem, though

You say "Obama is the reason that these young people are excited." The obvious *possible* danger of this: no Obama, no excitement; and, that they will be excited no matter which direction he or the party go. That is worthy of consideration, and it is no call for a big for or against Obama brouhaha.

For many of us the priority was not necessarily to get more people interested in politics - though that is important and valuable in its own right - nor to fill the government with more people with a "D" after their name - though that is important, as well. The priority is to develop the political will, through public pressure, to defend and advance the interests and well being of the working people against the ravages of the wealthy and powerful few.

It should not be a condition of supporting Obama that we ignore this issue, or just blithely assume that this priority comes with the package, and so to now stop talking about this priority. Many of us have talked about it all along, in regard to all of the politicians and candidacies, and it has nothing specifically to do with Obama. But some Obama supporters are telling us to stop talking about that priority, and that makes me, for one, more suspicious that my fears are accurate - that this priority is in fact not part of the package.

If Obama is the next FDR, why are we old school New Dealers getting the bum's rush when we try to talk about that, and seen as enemies of the Obama phenomenon - enemies of all that is good and right in the world? If Obama is the next FDR would we not welcome the analysis and concerns of life long New Deal advocates rather than see them as the enemy? I don't see how we can have it both ways: "Obama is everything that you people want, so shut up about what you want." Which is it? If he is everything we want, I would think that there would be more opportunity to talk about what we want, not less. Yet there is less.

[Solon]

16. I think the key problem is that the movement is being personified...

as the sending one person to the White House. To be honest, I find that appalling, no movement should be based on that, yes, people's movements have leaders and spokespersons, but those leaders and spokespersons only explain what the movement was about. I think that is lost on many people, the Civil Rights Movement wasn't about Martin Luther King Jr. getting a Nobel Peace Prize, it was about making sure that blacks had the same legal rights as whites. That was a goal he worked towards, the same is true for the Women's Suffrage Movement, and the Labor Movement. The goals were, in many aspects, removed from the leaders, indeed, in the case of all these movements, most of the leaders were dead by the time the movements hit their stride, or accomplished important goals.

My question is, what is the goal of this new, Obama movement?

[FrenchieCat]

19. There is no problem, although that is the first sentence in your post.....

The only problem is that you don't care much for the person that appears to be the one who is able to do what other politicians haven't been able to do in a long time.

In fact, it sounds like you are the one with the problem, and manufacturing all of these arguments to attempt to hide the fact is not going to help you with those who can see through all of that posturing that you are doing.

Of course the Civil Rights movement was not about MLK.....and Barack often says that this election is not about him. Maybe you think that its about Barack...but Barack doesn't say that it is. It just happens that he has all of the right tools at the right time....much to your dismay, obviously.

The goal for Obama voters and Obama is, to start with, Open government (after 8 long years) and ending this fucked up war, to start with. Affordable health care, less corporate control, more common sense regulations over trade in a Global economy and improved education standard and settings. A fairer tax system and the promotion of enviromental policies that will help our earth and wean use from our reliance on Oil. Also a stricter adherence to our constitution than what we have seen over the last 8 years. There is more, but it is late. You should perhaps spend less time pontificating on what you think, and take the time out to possibly find out why Obama is leading such a movement. You might resent him being a leader, but it doesn't change the fact, that so far, he done pretty well on that front.

[Solon]

21. Those ideas are good, as generalities...

But, breaking them down, you encounter problems, Open government is fine, though, to be honest, it hasn't been that open in a long time, predating Bush. I don't know what Obama is planning on this front, but we'll see.

As far as the other goals, well, Obama's health care ideas suck ass, literally a day late and a dollar short, and leaving many people behind. His ideas on Free Trade are contradictory with his voting record, having voted for free trade with Oman, for example, and against others. As far as less corporate control, well, we'll wait and see, I'm not optimistic about that either. Ending the Iraq war is a laudable goal, and one I fully agree with, however, how about ending the ENTIRE Global war on Terror, it was bullshit anyways, has he addressed that? In addition, he has made mention of increasing our troop levels and funding for the Pentagon, this I find disturbing. Stricter adherence to the Constitution is a plus, and that's perhaps the only thing I'm optimistic he would actually do, especially in regards to habeas corpus rights.

The fact is I don't resent Obama being a leader of such a movement, my concern is more fundamental, I disagree with most of his positions on most key issues. They either don't go far enough, or they are in the wrong direction(to the right) than I feel comfortable with.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Like I said......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5525429&mesg_id=5525935

In other words, you see the glass as 1/2 empty. It is too easy to have objections. We can all do that. However, I don't consider your objections to mean that you have any real solutions....because you are talking in the vague generalities that you object to.

What would you do that is workable and could be achieve? Tell us how you would be funded and succeed in posiitioning yourself to win? what it is that you would offer; and most importantly, how you would change mindsets, control the media powers, etc...?

[Solon]

31. Oh shit, where to begin...

Let's see here, well I'm an advocate of H.R. 676, even wrote a post showing how we can reduce costs and afford single payer health care at the same time, warning, a lot of math in this post:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Solon/22

On energy independence, I was always an advocate for diversifying our sources of energy, solar in sunny areas, wind in windy areas, geothermic near active geologic activity, etc. I even designed a geothermic power plant that would run several pipes through Yellowstone that would be able to withstand the extreme heat and flash vaporize the water and pipe it straight to high speed turbines then condense it and recycle it into the natural hydrosphere. The genius of the system was partially the construction, which was to be done by small tunneling robots that can withstand high temperatures, up to a thousand degrees, mostly made of ceramic with remote electronics and insulated motors. Similar to the tunneling machines used to build the Chunnel, but smaller.

The system is designed to leave a small surface footprint, outside of a reservoir of water located in an elevated location several miles from Yellowstone, and the turbines and power plant several miles on the other side of Yellowstone. The infrastructure for most of the plant would be underground, leaving the ecosystem on the surface undisturbed. This includes avoiding the existing natural vents. Indeed, the system would be powered by two different sources, gravity, to let the water flow into the pipes, and the geothermic activity, to vaporize the water into extremely high pressure steam. In fact, ideally, I would want the pipes placed below the lowest point of the small streams and water aquifers already located in the Park that power geysers like Old Faithful, so as to leave them untouched. I estimated that the electricity produced from such a plant could power most of the United States west of the Mississippi River for many millions of years, given nominal maintenance.

Other than that, I also wrote this post about oil independence(the above paragraph was about electricity production, obviously):

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Solon/17

Here's my idea to "fix" in other words, replace NAFTA(also give you an idea of how I feel about free trade):

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Solon/9

Here's some ideas and rants on foreign policy:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Solon/5

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Solon/20

OK, I touched on some of the basics, to be honest, some of these posts are old, and I fleshed out some of it, but its far too late, or early, depending on Point of View, for me to get into too much detail, but just to let you know, I'm not bereft of ideas, and generally I don't see these as being implemented anytime soon, however, I decided to put them out there, they seem reasonable to me, and some of them may have to be necessary, in one form or another.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Like I said......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5525429&mesg_id=5525935

In other words, you see the glass as 1/2 empty. It is too easy to have objections. We can all do that. However, I don't consider your objections to mean that you have any real solutions....because you are talking in the vague generalities that you object to.

What would you do that is workable and could be achieve? Tell us how you would be funded and succeed in posiitioning yourself to win? what it is that you would offer; and most importantly, how you would change mindsets, control the media powers, etc...?

[Two Americas]

34. this is just hero worship

You don't want any discussion that is not consonant with hero worship of the individual, and are hearing my points as an attack on the hero.

All I asked was that my well-thought out and rational points be given some consideration - for all of our sakes, including Obama and his supporters.

But you can only see me as the enemy, and tell me that I am the one with the problem, that I am posturing and misleading people, that I am "manufacturing all these arguments."

Your response supports what I am saying, it doesn't refute it, and is a perfect example of what people are disturbed about with the Obama phenomenon.

You are talking to me as a "true believer" - it sounds like a sales pitch or evangelism. The problem with that is that selling and preaching are very bad campaign techniques. They are working now on a certain segment of the population, but that will kill us in the general if we are not careful. People do not want to be sold on someone else's belief system, they don't want to be lectured in condescending and self-righteous terms.

Obama is a decent candidate, and will no doubt be the nominee. He may make a good president. That is exactly the same thing I have said about dozens of candidates I have worked for over the decades. What is different this time, is that in the case of this candidacy that is insufficient - one must "get" it - whatever that is, and any expression of anything other than hero worship and one is seen as the enemy and all that is evil in the world.

How about we elect him, rather than having these battles between those who are in love with him and those who are not? That is going to require some critical thinking, some discussion, and some solidarity and consensus among all of us. I just do not believe that it is possible to get 50 million to fall in love with the man - not sure I would want to see that happen in any case - and if anyone not in love with him is to be treated as the enemy by Obama supporters we are in big trouble.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. You ask "My question is, what is the goal of this new, Obama movement?"

And the answer should be - it is time for America to WAKE THE F*CK UP.

Too many Americans have been lulled to sleep, distracted by the shiny object, made fat and happy with the bread and circuses, or were made "invisible" by the marginalization of their lives with inferior schools and education, a lack of vocational training, and outsourcing of manufacturing jobs that resulted in chronic unemployment - this eventually forcing them to dwell in the netherworld of homelessness, crime, drug abuse, spousal and child abuse, prison, and overall despair.

I recall statistics that indicate that it costs society ~$30,000 - $40,000 per year to house an inmate. What sense does this make?

In a symbolic use terms, Obama's campaign has emphasized the phrase "We are the ones we have been waiting for". Meaning that "the people" need to stop being dependent on their elected officials to wave the magic wand and make things better. "The people" need to become more involved in their society - not just by voting, but by participating. When a teenaged male commits a crime, that child often has some parent or guardian somewhere - and sadly in many cases, that caretaker has given up or is struggling, or may even be sitting at a club having a good time (as a coping mechanism) completely oblivious to what their progeny is doing. Society needs to take a serious look at itself and start changing the mindset. Only then will they be in a position to elect someone who will lobby for a real change to benefit them.

It goes back to the Kennedyism - "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". And I think most people know by now that Obama's advisers have used the Kennedy theme during this campaign to try to initiate a change in societal mindset. Only when a society changes can they finally stop pulling that lever AGAINST their own interests.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

So my question is - "What is YOUR goal and what do you plan to do to institute change?"

[Perry Logan]

30. Rest easy. Today's young voters are the most Democratic generation in American history.

[JoFerret]

32. Wasn't true before

Probably won't be true this time either. Think 1968 and 1972 and 1980 and 1984 and 1988.
It's more more complicated.

Imagine for a moment a totally fucked up Obama four years. Could happen. I don't think it's likely but it is not beyond the realm of possibility given many circumstances beyond his - and the nation's - control. That plus the things he will mess up on his own.
Then imagine a bright shiny republican in 2012.