creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
16 Nov 2014
Why China Is Cooperating on Climate Change

Americans like to keep the world simple, dividing important countries into two groups: valued allies and … Read More.

6 Nov 2014
The U.S. Goes to War Without a Clue, Again

War, it's been said, is God's way of teaching Americans geography. Maybe we do learn how to locate the … Read More.

2 Nov 2014
Ebola Quarantines Ignore Experience and Trample Freedom

I am a faithful and loving husband to a wonderful woman, and I do not make a practice of hugging women I don'… Read More.

Is Hillary Too Old?

Comment

Are there good reasons to vote against Hillary Clinton? If you gave me some time — like two seconds — I could come up with some.

She's an unreformed hawk, a true believer in big government and a tedious speaker. During her 2008 campaign against Barack Obama, she waffled on immigration, disparaged free trade and compared her opponent, unfavorably, to John McCain.

She made false statements about her role in the 1993 White House travel-office scandal, defended her husband as he lied about Monica Lewinsky, lost records requested by prosecutors in another scandal only to find them two years later, and managed to make $100,000 trading on cattle futures in suspicious circumstances. She has offered no discernible reason she should be president beyond her resume and her sex.

If I had to come up with reasons not to vote against her, though, the list is shorter — including that, at 67, she's too old. But that's one that Republicans seem determined to flog.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, 47, raised the issue by saying he's in no rush to make a White House race because "I could run 20 years from now and still be about the same age as the former secretary of state is right now." In case anyone missed his point, he added that Clinton "embodies that old, tired top-down approach from the government."

Others have been less subtle. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, 72, flashed his trademark wit, saying the 2016 Democratic field resembles "a rerun of 'The Golden Girls.'" Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul expressed concern that she might not be up to the "rigorous physical ordeal" of a presidential campaign.

This line of attack should permanently debunk the charge that conservatives are inflexible. Paul showed no distress when his father, Ron, ran for president in 2012 at age 76. In 2008, McConnell's party nominated McCain, who was 72. Last time, it picked Mitt Romney, who may run again in 2016 despite being seven months older than Clinton.

The 1996 GOP presidential nominee, Bob Dole, was 73. Party idol Ronald Reagan was 69 when he took office — the same age as Clinton would be.

This last comparison is not entirely fair to her.

That's because age affects men and women differently. Today, a typical white female born when Clinton was born can expect to draw breath for another 20 years. Her genes are working in her favor: Her father lived to 82 and her mother to 92.

Her sell-date is the last thing anyone should worry about. "Were she to win in 2016," the National Journal reported in April, "Clinton would take office with the longest projected total life expectancy of any president in the modern (era)." Yes, even longer than Obama, whose projected lifespan when he took office was a mere 79 years.

McCain's life expectancy in 2008, according to the actuarial tables, gave him just another 12 years before expiring. That estimate didn't take into account the possibly life-shortening effects of the physical abuse he suffered as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. But Republicans had no evident qualms about putting him in the Oval Office.

Reagan may be taken as proof that 69 is too old, because he reportedly showed signs of Alzheimer's disease during his second term. The risk that Clinton will develop it before 2025 is higher than if she were younger, but still low. In this country, only 2.9 percent of whites between the ages of 65 and 74 get it, and 10.9 percent between the ages of 75 and 84.

Senility is a risk that goes with senior citizen discounts, but age has compensations as well. Had Bill Clinton been 66 when he took office instead of 46, he might have left the interns alone. In 2008, McCain called Obama "a young man with very little experience." That was before the Arizona senator picked a running mate who was even younger and less experienced.

Even during his re-election campaign, at age 51, one conservative commentator called Obama "callow." If Democrats chose to nominate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. (47), or Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (51), you would not hear a chorus of conservatives exclaiming, "Now I'll have to consider voting Democratic."

The real problem with Clinton is that in all likelihood she will remain vigorous enough to assure eight years of military crusading, budget expansion, economic meddling and irritating moralism. A dozing geezer, a burned-out comet, a spent volcano? Don't I wish.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... For Mrs. Clinton; Too old is not the problem. Too feminine is not the problem. Too crooked is not the problem. Too idealistic is not the problem. Too ambitious is not the problem. Too avaricious is not the problem. Too fat and rummy is not the problem. The problem is too much of all of the above qualities, and too representative, too remeniscent of a real failure of her husbands administration as president.
It may be too much to ask that any of these presidents run effective, and efficient administrations. In fact; the civil service system, in freeing too much of government from the spoils system actually made much of government unresponsive to any political stimulli, and less accountable to the people. You would have to kill the bureaucracy to see if it was dead. It is not enough to complain that the bureaucracy is a bureaucracy, and that the president has no real control. The people expect the president to have control. Before any president points a finger at the lethargic and crumbling bureaucracy, he may as well point a pistol at his head. Blame the Ass of the Government, and the Head can forget about help from that Quarter.
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:30 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Nov. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 24 Nov 2014
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 22 Nov 2014
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 22 Nov 2014

18 Aug 2011 A False Remedy for Sex Offenders

11 Feb 2007 Rudy Giuliani, Running Against Hamlet

25 Mar 2007 All Illegal Immigration Is Local