The Ageist Attack on Hillary

[DonViejo]

by Michael Tomasky Jul 1, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

Republicans are preparing to attack Clinton for being old. Michael Tomasky on why it will probably backfire.

So now the Republicans, having tried sexism against Hillary Clinton for two decades, say they’re ditching that and going for ageism. Of course whether the party of Todd Akin and involuntary vaginal probes really can ditch sexism remains doubtful, so let’s amend the above to say simply that they’re adding ageism to the list of indictments. They actually have a bit of a point. If Clinton seeks the presidency in 2016, she’ll be old enough for her age to be an issue—Ronald Reagan turned 70 just three weeks into his presidency, and Clinton would do so nine months into her first year as president. Where the planned attack melts into comedy, though, is in the idea that Republicans can springboard from the simple actuarial question of her age to selling young voters on the idea that it is they, not the Democrats, who are with it. Here, they’ll make the same pathetic mistake they always make of assuming that X voting bloc is stupid enough to fall for symbolism.

The story appeared in yesterday’s Times, if you missed it, with several GOP operatives telling Jonathan Martin the message would be that it’s time for Clinton’s generation to step off the stage. The comparative youth of many of the GOP’s leading candidates—Marco Rubio is 42, Paul Ryan is 43, Rand Paul is 50—renders the theme all the more tempting. Karl Rove told Martin: “The idea that we’re at the end of her generation and that it’s time for another to step forward is certainly going to be compelling.”

The Rove quote suggests a war that will be waged on two fronts. First, her age and physical condition; second, the question of which candidate can better “relate” to young voters. On the first point, there will be questions Clinton will need to answer. That fainting spell and concussion last year saw to that. And she probably can’t quip the issue away. Reagan famously said in a debate with Walter Mondale, when the issue of his age came up, that he wouldn’t hold Mondale’s relative “youth and inexperience” against him. Ho ho ho, end of issue.

It won’t work that way for Clinton for two reasons. First, in 1984, a handful of middle-aged male pundits could decide that that one line put the issue to rest. Our current reality is rather different. The right-wing press will traffic in all kinds of sleazy rumors the instant she catches cold. And second, she is something Reagan was not. A woman. She’ll face more questions than he did, and far more criticism. Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners if Americans want to “watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis.” If he has the reach we’re told he has, he creates 10 new Clinton voters every time he opens his fat mouth.

full article
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/01/the-ageist-attack-on-hillary.html

[Little Star]

1. There is no place to low for them to go. Wasn't Reagan close to 70 when he became president?...

Or is their point that a woman shouldn't be that age?

[SheilaT]

2. I was one who thought Reagan was entirely too old

to be President in the first place, and that was completely aside from my dislike of his politics. And it was pretty obvious to the most casual observers that he had dementia of some kind well before the end of his second term.


While I am not about to suggest that Hillary Clinton will necessarily develop dementia in the next decade, I am one who feels she is probably too old to consider running in three years, but more to the point, we need new people in the Democratic Party leadership.

[antigop]

3. Yes, we need new people --- NOT Corporate Dems. nt

[juajen]

7. We need someone who can get elected!

Hillary is our best bet. It is time for a female President, and she is brilliant and has more than the needed experience. Also. please remember, women live much longer than men, and she traveled all over the world for this country, and according to the people who should know, namely the State Department, she was a powerhouse. She is a gift for this country and the world. I hope she runs.

[antigop]

9. bullpucky....we don't need a corporate Dem..the Clintons have done enough damage to the country.

Cue the 'haters/bashers" posts from the sycophants.

[SheilaT]

10. I seem to recall that a lot of people thought Hillary

was completely inevitable in 2008. No one else needed to bother to run, thank you very much.

I do respect her well enough, but she's part of the Same Old Same Old we've been dealing with far too long. It's time for new blood, new people, new ideas in the party.

As for time for a female president, I hope that's true, but there really are other women out there.

[antigop]

17. Sheila, here's something for you....

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1

She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.

Same old, same old is right...just another corporate Dem.

I guess that makes Business Week a "hater/basher".

[antigop]

4. Watch it, Sheila. You'll be called a "hater" or something. nt

atch

[SheilaT]

11. LOL!

I've been roundly chastized here for my opinions on Hillary, as well as other things I've said. Apparently ten or eleven people have me on Ignore, which I find completely amazing.

[bornskeptic]

6. If elected, McCain would have been 72 when inaugurated.

Bob Dole would have been 73 at inauguration.

[BlueStater]

5. I don't like any of them.

Not Hillary or the little "Brat Pack" twerps the Repukes are comparing her to. None of them deserve to be dogcatcher, let alone president.

Can we please, please, PLEASE get some decent candidates? Nothing I've heard about the next election so far has been remotely encouraging. I wish people like Sheldon Whitehouse or Sherrod Brown would run but it seems only the lunatics ever want the job.

[Beacool]

8. Hillary is the Democrat they fear the most.

They have called this woman every name in the book since 1992 and she just shrugs it off and thrives.

I don't know if Hillary will chose to run in 2016, but of one thing I'm sure: if she runs, she wins.

The Republicans know that she would beat any candidate they throw at her. The only one who would have a sliver of a chance would be Christie and he's too moderate for the base.

[PlanetBev]

12. Oh, that's going to go over well with women

I can't wait to see how this turns out for them.

[davidpdx]

13. I agree it will backfire if she runs

There is a clear double standard. If she doesn't run, I think this it might not be a huge issue. There is the possibility it could hurt them in 2014 as well. If you get enough far right wing candidates bashing her on the campaign trail it would help Senate and House candidates.

[lunatica]

14. It's not going to work

[UCmeNdc]

15. The GOP plans to pit Marco Rubio youth against Hillary Clinton's age

THe tea leaves are lining up in Marco Rubio's favor to lead the GOP's ticket.

[DFW]

16. Hillary was born in 1947

Just like the last Republican candidate for President, only half a year later. Willard would have been 70 less than two months after any second inauguration he might have wanted.

So she would be 69 when she took office if elected. Younger than their god, Reagan.

Ergo, they're saying it's OK for a Republican man of average intelligence, but not for a Democratic woman of high intelligence.

Got it.

[datasuspect]

18. this country doesn't need another oligarch