The New York Times recently reported that certain of the Republican cognoscenti have decided to float, ever so subtly, the idea that Hillary Clinton is past it. "The 2016 election may be far off, but one theme is becoming clear: Republican strategists and presidential hopefuls, in ways subtle and overt, are eager to focus a spotlight on Mrs. Clinton’s age." They want to say, in other words that, Mrs. Clinton, who will be 69 when November 2016 rolls around, will be too old to hold the office of President. As Rush Limbaugh so eloquently put it in 2008, they want you to think this: Do I "want to vote for somebody, a woman, and actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Yeah, because that would be so much worse than watching a man grow older before our eyes on a daily basis, which we've done for, I don't know, the entire history of the United States of America. Pbbt.
First, such an argument is hypocritical when one considers the GOP's most revered modern day President, Ronald Reagan. When Mr. Reagan was first elected in 1980, he was older then than Mrs. Clinton will be in November 2016. And do you really want her to highlight this hypocrisy by quoting Reagan's fantastic "youth and inexperience" line back to you? No, no you don't.
But here's really why it's a colossally bad idea:
If you make the argument that Mrs. Clinton is ill-suited to high office because she is old, you are, essentially, telling every woman of a certain age that she is also past it, worth less than she was at a younger age. And these ladies are reliable voters. (P.S. You're also telling a fair number of men the same thing. For Senator Mitch McConnell has already described the Democratic field -- Mrs. Clinton and Joe Biden, who will be 70 in 2016 -- as "a rerun of the Golden Girls." Yes, you're indeed worthless if you're older, to Mr. McConnell, no spring chicken himself at age 71. Nice going. Beside, the Golden Girls was a great show!)
And, by the way, when I say "of a certain age," I do not merely mean over 65. I mean even folks as young as 45 or 46. There are a lot of voters out there who are seniors or soon-to-be seniors. Tacitly telling those folks that their services, skills, knowledge and talents are not as valuable now merely because the body is more than four or five decades old, and a little wrinkled and saggy, is not a good move.
Age is as weak a criticism of Mrs. Clinton as the criticism that Sarah Palin endured for being a vice presidential candidate who was also a mother of five children, one of whom was a special needs child. Nope, no other vice president had ever had young/youngish kids before, so I can see why Mrs. Palin was criticized for that . . . . Oh wait. Yeah, there were many things to criticize about Sarah Palin. Her status as the parent of young children was not fair game. I dare say that if her name were Sam Palin and she were the father, no one would have batted an eye.
So, similarly, yes, there's a trove criticisms to lob at Hillary Clinton after so many years in the public spotlight. Have at it, GOP! But, age is not one of them.
She's not too old. Find a different way.
