Hillary Clinton has myriad problems; age isn’t one of them |
Featured Commentary

Hillary Clinton has myriad problems; age isn’t one of them


There are good reasons to vote against Hillary Clinton. 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.

Mrs. Clinton 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 Democrat field resembles “a rerun of ‘The Golden Girls.’” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul expressed concern that Hillary 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.

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 Democrat.”

The real problem with Hillary 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

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.