Critics of young Americans like to argue that we are too wrapped up in ourselves to care about politics, that we're too busy obsessing over our Facebook profiles to get up out of our seats and attend a political rally or vote. David Von Drehle's article in Time magazine should help those critics finally put that tired old stereotype to rest. Today’s young people do care about politics, but despite increased youth voting in 2004 and 2006, politicians still acted like we didn’t matter. No one really reached out and asked us for our support. But, as Von Drehle points out, Illinois Senator Barack Obama did in the run up to the 2008 primaries, and young people responded.

There's no doubt that Obama has lit a fire under young Americans, but it would be a mistake to view young people's interest in Obama solely as a response to his personal narrative. As Von Drehle correctly points out, Obama's success has as much to do with his organization and strategy as it has to do with his message:

Obama's support among youth is not just a matter of mood; it is a product of effort and organization, of finding his supporters and getting them to the polls. … Obama's outreach to students didn't spring from some starry-eyed principle. It started as a specific element of his early strategy in Iowa. The first-in-the-nation caucuses allow 17-year-olds to vote if they are going to turn 18 before the general election, which means most high school seniors are eligible. To win those kids, Obama did something unusual in politics: he made them a genuine priority. After his rallies in towns across the state, he met backstage with student leaders from the area — a privilege most campaigns reserve for local VIPs and fund raisers.  

So when it comes down to it, young people today aren't really lazy or indifferent; we're just human. In general, people don't get excited about politics (or anything else) unless they know their voices are valued, that they can actually make a difference. Early in his campaign, Obama bet that if he told us we matter, we'd be more likely to support his candidacy. And his bet paid off.

Von Drehle's does miss one important, if subtle, point, however: Hillary Clinton has also played a significant role in solidifying young people's new place as an important demographic in American politics. It may have been unintentional, but it's still noteworthy. Before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton's campaign, like dozens of old-school campaign's before hers, wasn't really attempting to reach out to young people. The campaign even went so far as to tell college students they shouldn’t participate in the Iowa caucuses if they weren't originally from the state. Bad move. Only 10% of college- and high school-aged caucus goers voted for Clinton, while 57% went for Obama and fueled his surprise victory that night.

Clinton was quick to correct her mistake. In the days between the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, the Clinton campaign changed its tone and strategy by reaching out to young people via the Internet, on campuses, and through a retooled stump speech. The changes paid off. While Clinton still didn't best Obama among young people in the Granite State, she certainly softened the blow: Among 18 to 24 year olds, Clinton captured 22% of the vote, and among 25 to 29 year olds, she actually beat him outright. Clinton received 37% of the 25 to 29 year-old vote, while Obama only received 35% of it.

Clinton's decision to retool her message and strategy is probably one of the reasons she was able to become the Comeback Kid of the 2008 race. The lesson of New Hampshire is clear: Even the most old-school, traditional campaigns must now pay attention to young people to win. As a political demographic, the next generation of Americans has arrived.

There's one other lesson we should take away from these first few primary fights. In the past month we've seen that the key to capturing the youth vote is reaching out to young people, talking to us about the issues we care about. This lesson doesn't only apply to presidential candidates; it applies to presidents, too. We can say now with more certainty than ever that when historians look back on the Bush presidency, one of his largest failures (among many) will be his decision, in the wake of 9/11, to not reach out to young people. In a time of war and economic hardship, the most our president asked of us was to spend our money and to trust his judgment on issues ranging from the Iraq war, FEMA, and social security. (All bad ideas.)

We've been waiting for our president to reach out to us, to explain how we fit into the larger narrative of post 9/11 America. We're ready to help shape our world now. Our president should have offered us a way to do so seven years ago. But, I guess, late is better than never.