My oh my, so many people are miffed that the subject of Hillary Clinton's age is creeping...or storming...into the 2016 presidential election talk. Democrats don't like the topic, many in the media have forgotten how quick they were to point out Reagan and McCain's age as a detriment to office. I tend to agree with Sam Stein a left leaning political writer for the Huffington Post and a White House correspondent. He told an agrravated Morning Joe table on MSNBC the other day that Hillary's age is a legitimate issue to discuss. And I agree. If other candidates can have their age insulted, joked about or critiqued, so can Hillary. And I say that as someone who is not 36 years old and much more in line with Hillary.
But here in the National Journal comes another defense of why her age shouldn't matter. If elected she would be as old as Reagan when she takes office. "A combination of federal data and a more nuanced approach to calculating Clinton's life expectancy—one that includes her gender, era, and other factors—projects the would-be president living to age 86. That means Clinton would live a full 17 years after taking office, more than enough time to serve out two terms."
This stuff is fairly humorous. Go ahead and rationalize why her age doesn't matter when it sure did/does become a subject of jokes and frustration when it comes to GOP candidates.