Saturday, February 15, 2014

Madam President?

During any given presidential election many "isms" get bandied about.  I think it important that as a run-up to the 2016 campaign a bit of agism be injected.  And now is as good a time as any, since we Americans are given to being perpetually in "elections mode" .

Hillary Clinton may be the only American citizen who does not know that she will run for President in 2016.  Or her noncommittal stance may be a sham.  With a politician, this is highly likely.  So what am I getting at?  Suppose that Ms. Clinton does run for the office (she will), then suppose furthermore that she will be elected (highly likely).  Then consider these data.

On Inauguration Day Hillary Clinton will be 69 years, 86 days of age.

The five oldest inaugurates to the office were

69 years, 349 days:  Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
68 years, 23 days:  William Henry Harrison (1841)
65 years, 315 days:  James Buchanan (1857-1861)
64 years, 223 days:  George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
64 years, 100 days:  Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)

Which would place Ms. Clinton at number two on the list if she is elected, and by less than nine months difference in age from Mr. Reagan.

Is this really what the nation wants?  Yes, we want maturity, and for sure no one would think of her as a girl or a young woman.  But really?  I pose this question not as a smart-aleck whippersnapper who has nothing but disdain for the elderly.  No, I pose it as a person who has gone through all the previous stages of life up to and including 79 years of age.

What about stamina?  What about alertness and quickness on the uptake?  She would be 73 years old at the end of the term, and if a second term were in the cards, she would be 77 at the end.

Do we really want another President who sleeps during Cabinet meetings?  But then, what could it hurt?

Ooh, I am so ticked.  I wrote this item at six o'clock Friday morning at set it in queue to post at four o'clock Saturday morning.  Then I find on Friday afternoon that the topic has been thrown into the media mix, thereby making me look like a copycat.  Thanks, Charlie Cook of the "National Journal."

One commentator said,  "Pfft.  Seventy is the new fifty."  Yeah, well that commentator is still on the sunny side of fifty, the real chronological fifty.


Vee said...

Maybe some creative plastic surgery will assist us in forgetting her age. The surgery being for her, of course, not for us. (Frontal lobotomies for us.) Then, following her inauguration, the daily prayer of the faithful might be: "For Ms. Clinton that she not be plagued by dementia (and that a hairdresser always be on her personal staff.)" Lord, hear our prayer!

vanilla said...

Vee, oh, Sis, you are too funny!

Sharkbytes said...

I don't much care how old she is, but I certainly won't be voting for her. Of course she might go the way of WHH... which could leave us with someone even worse.

Grace said...

I wouldn't vote for her because of her age - hers is the same as mine. I would make a great president - so wait, maybe the age thing shouldn't be a factor? I'm undecided...

vanilla said...

Sharkey, poor WHH. Didn't have a chance.

Grace, Grace, analysis exercise for Logic 101
Grace’s syllogism: I am the same age as Hillary; I would make a great president; therefore, I may vote for Hillary.
Where is the disconnect? Oh, I see. Voting for Hillary will not elect Grace.