India went through this phase when the young Rajiv Gandhi won the elections held soon after his mother's assasination in a landslide. The "sympathy vote," the political analysts called it. Only it wasn't. In the rural areas, it was a sympathy vote, illiterate folks voting with their hearts for an inexperienced orphan. But in the cities, Rajiv's youth and looks seemed to promise a better future. He too talked of the 21st century.
A few years into his prime-ministership, the public's fascination started to fade. He got caught in a multi-million dollar bribery scandal. His economic policies depleted the foreign currency reserves. He deployed the Indian army in Sri Lanka to oversee a peace accord and lots of kids died abroad. The prime minister who succeeded him was an old, experienced fellow who proved to be equally corrupt but at least a better administrator.
Had I been Clinton, I would have told that young student that youth and good lucks might win elections but are poor preparations for ruling a country. Clinton should have pointed out that his education, charisma, intelligence and experience governing a state all help him now. But he didn't.
Clinton, as besotted by youth as America is, probably believes that none of those things are as important as the ability to get on TV and tug at a few hearts.
