The age issue is rearing its ugly head again with Karl Rove’s comment on Hillary Clinton and her health issue in the last months of her time as Secretary of State, when she fell, hit her head, and was hospitalized for a few days, and took a month to recuperate.
One must remember that Hillary Clinton set records for travel mileage as Secretary of State, enough to cause anyone health issues temporarily, but there is no hint that she is not up to the challenge of running for President.
Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden too, are both extremely qualified for the Presidency, and Karl Rove is going in dangerous territory in using the age issue, particularly when it is clear that Ronald Reagan was never the same after his gunshot wound ten weeks into his Presidency, and seemed lacking in alertness when debating Walter Mondale in the first Presidential debate in 1984; fell asleep with the Pope, and at cabinet meetings; is rumored to have been in early stages of dementia and Alzheimers in his second term; and had trouble answering questions on a constant basis at press conferences. It was often said that Nancy Reagan was his eyes and ears in more ways than one.
Since both Hillary and Joe are, clearly, intellectually, superior to Reagan, Rove’s comment only draws more attention to the shortcomings of Reagan, but also to other recent GOP nominees Bob Dole and John McCain, both of whom were in their 70s. Or is this sexism, because Hillary is a woman?
Having said all of the above, it is still reality that a younger Republican Presidential nominee in 2016 will likely be seen as having some edge over a much older Democratic nominee, as only Reagan has had the edge as the older nominee over much younger opponents. So it brings up the question as to whether it would be better for a younger, newer generation Democratic nominee, as with JFK in 1960, Carter in 1976, Clinton in 1992, and Obama in 2008. It is well worth careful consideration!