Hillary to Students: Don't Vote

HILLARY'S ATTACK TEAM RUNS NUMBERS?

" Hillary Clinton's campaign needs to ask itself: is declaring war on a key Democratic constituency a smart way of winning the primary?"

My guess is that in fact the Clinton Attack Machine did run the numbers, and they found that the word CHANGE, means no more Clinton's, no more Bush's that they are more Independent, and not willing to be tied to any lock step, wear a red bandana, or a blue bandana and your safe approach to life.
The (30) thirty year old's were (14)fourteen when William Jefferson Clinton age (47) and Hillary was age (44)forty-four. Now, that group is (30), and Bill is (63) sixty-three, and Hillary will be (61) sixty-one and not in her forty's entering office. There is more connection between someone who is only (17)seventeen years your senior than someone (31) thirty-one year's your senior.
This is a period of CHANGE, and not a period of change meaning a return to old ideas and policy and tweeking them. The Clinton Attack Machine is (35) thirty-five year old, older than the students themselves. The students grew up with it and know how it works, its part of their life and they want CHANGE.
It is up to the students to really get into this thing, it's their present and future life, if they want status quo, Hillary Rodham-Clinton, (61-69) (2008-2016) is their ticket, Bill (63-71).

Very Respectfully,
D. L. Graham
El Cajon, San Diego, CT. CA.

HEY DL like i said before - practice saying "YES MADAM PRESIDENT" and I don't mean Condi Rice

Matt Singer,

I read the "linked source material" from which you draw your criticism of Sen. Clinton's view on "student voters". It was the last thing brought up after a series of valid points that she made. It was not the focus of the article and it obviously was just her opinion. There was no lecture; it was a passing comment...in my opinion.

Your quote: "parroting a typically rightwing argument that student voters are somehow illegitimate voters". That seems to be how you took it (your opinion); not what she said.

You know, maybe I am suffering from "voter fatigue"? The last few weeks have been filled with negative story after negative story on a lot of things I don't think the average voter cares about. This is true on the Republican side as well.

I think we're really in kind of a lull before things really kick-off and the media at large seems to want us hooked no matter what. Major broadcast news has stayed away from almost all of these little tidbits lately and moved on to what is really going on in the world right now. Maybe they sense that we all need a break?

Sincerely and respectfully,

Mr. Clark

Oh come on!! It's Hillary "If my lips are moving I'm lying" Clinton....what else could you possibly expect?

Respectfully, I'm not certain that I agree with your interpretation here. "Declaring war"? Really? Clinton merely said that out-of-tate students, whose residence doesn't automatically change due to their attendance at an Iowan university, shouldn't necessarity vote in Iowa. She didn't suggest that they shouldn't vote - they just shouldn't vote in Iowa if they aren't Iowans.

Far be it for my to come to the aid of Sen Clinton too often, but I think she is correct here. Though Iowa has placed itself at the spear's tip of political machinations by holding it's primary first in the cycle, the primary is still supposed to be about Iowans. Having a student who sees himself as a Californian voting in Iowa, particularly if it is simply to affect the political momentum of the candidates in later primaries, is a bit underhanded and conniving, I should posit.

And, "parroting a typically rightwing argument that student voters are somehow illegitimate voters" - maybe I'm just a bit too right-wing, but I have the idea that voting in your home state somehow makes sense. Is that an extremist, right-wing idea? Is the more responsible leftist principle that one ought to vote in whatever state will most help your candidate? That seems contrary to the theory behind state-run primaries.

Finally, your category of Student seems to be everyone under 30. Is that realistic? Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't most students around 18-23 or so? I'd wager the percentage of voters who are actually full-time students is far lower than the 17% you have posited.

"Clinton merely said that out-of-tate students, whose residence doesn't automatically change due to their attendance at an Iowan university, shouldn't necessarity vote in Iowa. She didn't suggest that they shouldn't vote - they just shouldn't vote in Iowa if they aren't Iowans."

What would you have these students, do when the primary occured in their original state, travel all the way home just to vote or attempt absentee voting? The following is not I repeat not a slam but it is safe to agree that the a majority of students are NOT conservatives. They are more liberal in their views. So be it. If this was a general election scenario, would the comment have been made at all since their votes would be important. It could be that the younger or first time voters are not necessarily "devoted" to someone that is much older than themselves who claims to represent some of their liberal ideals. Maybe the "change" some people are looking for does NOT include voting for 50+ yr old politician( Ooops, I'm reverting to the 60's again). It could very well be that some younger voters do not see someone who has been around so long as a "change".

On another point, personally, I would be happier if they did away with these "caucases" and just had the normal primary elections. This way a voter can cast his/her ballot in secret without anyone having the chance to try and change them after finding out that they did not support a particular candidate. The politician should get one shot and one shot only in the primaries to win a voter over. One shot that must happen within the time a person is marking their ballot. Not during an entire evening or day of going back and forth. This goes for ALL political parties.

With college students in Iwoa clearly trending towards Barrack Obama they may be holding out for Hillary to pony up $5,000 'Student Bonds' to buy their votes.
If students vote in numbers during the primaries to make it worth her while I'm sure she will come through.

Get out and vote kids so Hillary can pander to you too!!!!!!

@Justin Paulette:

Let's just cut to the chase and go straight to the Iowa caucusing rules, shall we? After all, Iowans put these rules in place via their elected officials, so it's better to consult their bylaws as opposed to some out of state politicans seeking to "surpress" the vote for political gain. Here is a link to the rules:

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/voterreg/collegestudentsvote.html

These rules clearly state the following:

Non-Iowa Resident Attending College IN Iowa
If you are from another state (i.e. Illinois) and are attending college in Iowa (i.e. Iowa State University), you may register to vote in:

your Iowa college town or
your home state (hometown) and vote absentee
(You cannot register to vote in both locations)
Your decision of where to register to vote will determine which candidates and what issues appear on your ballot.
*******************

And there is NOTHING coniving or shady about it. Obama put a line in his brochure saying to the students "if you live out of state and attend college in Iowa, you CAN(not must) come back to caucus. This is nothing more than what the rules say and he's not coercing anyone to do it. The rules say it's THEIR DECISION, and Obama simply has asked for their vote in Iowa. Biden, Clinton, Dodd, et al seem to want to surpress the vote by taking that decision away from college students and REQUIRING that they be barred from caucusing in their college town. That's ridiculous and THAT is what is coniving and shady.

Instead of this feeble attempt at surpressing this demographic's vote in Iowa, they should have built up their own support base among young college students so they could encourage these students to vote in Iowa in accordance with the bylaws, instead of resorting to republican gimmickry of surpressing the votes likely to go to their competition.

During the last two presidential elections, there was no question that Republicans bent over backwards to surpress certain votes and the Democrats screamed bloody murder and painted themselves as the champions of voting rights. Well, when it happens again during the 2008 election they will not be able to complain about it because they are now behaving like the flip side of the same coin, and Republicans can just hurl this nonsense right back at them and rightfully so!

You said: "maybe I'm just a bit too right-wing, but I have the idea that voting in your home state somehow makes sense. Is that an extremist, right-wing idea?"

--Only if you want to REQUIRE that people do what YOU think makes sense regardless of what the rules say they CAN do. Then yes, it's extreme and downright unfair. If you had a choice and made that decision for YOURSELF while not imposing upon others right to decide differently, then it's not a problem or extreme at all, in fact, that's as it should be!

You said: "Is the more responsible leftist principle that one ought to vote in whatever state will most help your candidate?"

--Any person participating in the electoral process ought to be savvy enough to cast the most effective vote possible if they have a choice. Don't make it sound sinister. It makes perfect sense for either party.

Surpressing the vote is lowdown trickery and it stinks from either side of the political playing field. period!