ok . . . so rudy's 17 year old daughter caroline supports obama. well enough . .. and when she's old enough to vote, she may even vote for him, too, i suppose.

you don't want to know what my politics were when i was 17. suffice it to say, kids who have yet to hold a real job, set foot in a college classroom, or file an income tax return hold pretty unrealistic theories about the way the world works. these viewpoints might even include dropping the drinking age to their current age, doubling taxes on "fat cats" (everyone earning more than $50,000 a year - an amazing sum to a kid); unilateral disarmament; and legalizing assault on your sister for taking stuff from your closet again without asking.

but we don't have to vote as caroline says, of course.

we could also follow the political lead of chelsea clinton, who, if she's not doing so already, will soon be sporting a campaign button which says something like "vote for my mom". there's some well considered, independent thinking also.

i say, let's put them on TV and have a debate - chelsea and caroline.

betcha the ratings would rival the "official" debates, and the entertainment value would be through the roof.

sort of like "jaywalking" (from the leno show) meets "american political idol".

a panel of celebrity judges can ask the questions (no, not simon). i'm thinking condi rice, joe biden, bush sr, nancy pelosi . . .

do i have to copyright this now, to protect my creative input?

Rudy may be lucky to get his current wife to vote for him.....

While I certainly have serious doubts about how appropriate this was for Slate to publish this I hardly think dismissing the judgment of all 17 year olds is fair or relevant. Absolutely they have a different perspective then they will in thirty years, but why is that a bad thing?

Many college freshman hold strong political convictions and choose to make them public whether they are from political families are not. I hardly think we should be discouraging that. Your condescending list of positions you imagine young people hold, some of which (lowering the drinking age) have serious arguments in their favor, is just insulting. And indicates a serious discontent from how politically minded many 17 year olds are.

[While I certainly have serious doubts about how appropriate this was for Slate to publish this I hardly think dismissing the judgment of all 17 year olds is fair or relevant. Absolutely they have a different perspective then they will in thirty years, but why is that a bad thing?]

It's not a bad thing to be immature and naive when you're immature and naive. It is a foolish thing, however, for those of us with a few more decades' worth of experience to be unduly concerned with their views on subjects best left to adults.

Do I care what a 17 year old thinks about the latest technology? Probably.

But politics? Not so much.

She should probably wait until she is much older to reveal how naive and immature she is.

But don't confuse your politics growing up as baltimore _aureole (that is, as a normal intelligent person) with the politics of someone born into the Giuliani family. This kid grew up on politics. Her father has been using her as a prop since her early childhood. She's had breakfast, lunch, dinner and parties with guys and women in poorly-tailored suits, and at 17, she's already eaten more warmed over fruitcups and rubber chicken than others. Yes, she's hormonal and estranged from him, but still -- beneath that all is could well be a political calculus more sophisticated than that of your average teenager.

"beneath that all is could well be a political calculus more sophisticated than that of your average teenager."

Or your average Frayster.

I can hardly even begin to swallow the fallacies latent within this response. How entirely ignorant can you be to completely dismiss the political views of a 17 year old by virtue of her only being 17 years old? I would contend that an individual of this age (especially one with the caliber of education of a rising Harvard student) is capable of forming views of the world that, if not a touch quixotic, are certainly legitimate. Obama's politics are not founded in some fantasy world of idealized tax systems and lowered drinking ages (?) and it seems as though attempts to discount his support as native to "immature, foolish 17 year olds" is nothing more than a cheap defense of this stinging assault to the conservative bedrock of 'family values.'

I hate to remind everyone that these issues "best left to adults" are issues pertinent to adults-- that is, citizens over the age of 18. That gives Guiliani's daughter less than one year.

the true conservative:

[While I certainly have serious doubts about how appropriate this was for Slate to publish this I hardly think dismissing the judgment of all 17 year olds is fair or relevant. Absolutely they have a different perspective then they will in thirty years, but why is that a bad thing?]

It's not a bad thing to be immature and naive when you're immature and naive. It is a foolish thing, however, for those of us with a few more decades' worth of experience to be unduly concerned with their views on subjects best left to adults.

Do I care what a 17 year old thinks about the latest technology? Probably.

But politics? Not so much.

Wow. You wonder why kids can seem apathetic about politics. Who cares what they think? Do you feel the same about people who are 18? Amazing what a difference a year makes. But the opinions of young people should be discounted, of course. Everyone knows that young people should just keep quiet and let the adults handle things. Never mind that many, many issues affect young people. Who is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Young people. Young people are likely to have a better idea of the state of education than people who haven't set foot in a school in decades. Oh yeah, and you old people expect us to pay for your retirement and be happy about it, but any time we start speaking about political issues, we get shunted off to the kids table. Yeah, most kids are dumb, lazy, ill-informed, etc. But some of us are well-informed, do have well-reasoned opinions, and feel we have as much a right as anyone to express them. And many more would as well if given the respect that should be afforded every citizen of this country whose right it is to have their voices heard.

Wow, absolutely astounding. I think that perhaps we should let Caroline vote as a 17 yr old rather than give you a vote at all. Probably the "viewpoint" you ascribe to immature 17 yr olds that shocks me the most is doubling taxes on 'fat cats.' As if this is some crazy whacked out idea that would never fly in reality.

You make yourself sound old and wise.... Were you alive then when taxes used to be doubled for the highest bracket? When this crazy idea was an actual reality? Do you remember that we were promised no more loop holes for the rich in exchange for the tax rate being lowered from around 70% to near 35%? Now we're stuck with the rich having a lower tax rate and using the loop holes.

But I guess your age and wisdom just refers to the fact that you became jaded after 1 paycheck. You started voting Republican because they promised you less taxes. You didn't bother looking to see if it was actually to your economic benefit to vote that way. You rationalize people starving when there is enough food to feed everyone in the world, because otherwise you might feel like a bad person when you envy your neighbor's sports car. You're forced to buy into the system, because it's the only way to justify your shallow selfish spending decisions. You mock the 17 yr olds to reinforce your erroneous belief that it could be no other way.

I am 23, so my response is rather bias, but I seem to have been coming across this theme often in political articles and comments; being that younger voters are utterly naive and trivial and therefore there is no merit to their opinions or ideals. Granted younger people's priorities may not be totally in check, but I think my generation understands a lot more about the world and has worked a lot harder than you or other people give them credit for. There are many, many people I know, myself included, who knew very well what it means to support yourself, to work a "real" manual labor, back-braking job, after your day job as an intern where you make no money whatsoever, go to school, volunteer your time at a nursing home or walk for breast cancer or involve yourself in a neighborhood cleanup, be a member of various student groups, etc, while paying for your rent, utilities, car, car insurance, groceries, etc, all on your own. This generation has grown up with both parents working outside the home, so that they've had to take on responsibilities in their households, look after their siblings, perhaps even help with their family's finances. So to underestimate their political stances because you think that their main concern is their sister taking their clothes, and to think that $50,000 dollars is a moderate sum when 90% of the world makes between US $7500 & US $75 /family /year indicates to me that you yourself have a distorted grasp on reality.