Haw haw haw, those stoopid Rethuglicans! It occurred to me that this cuts both ways. The guys (and gals) who made much of Reagan's age back in the day aren't at all concerned about Clinton's age as it might affect her fitness to be President. She'll be almost exactly the same age in 2016 as Reagan was in 1980. He was born in 1911, so he was 69 in 1980; she was born in 1947, so she'll be 69 in 2016. So if Reagan was too old to run, isn't she? (I noticed during the 2008 campaign that Ralph Nader was older [seventy-four!] than both of them, but no one else, not even those who demonized Nader, seemed to notice or care.)Thursday, May 15, 2014
THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.
The guys who continue to worship the most senile President in history want you to think Hillary Clinton is too old and feeble to serve.
Reagan was always a flake, so his endless flubs, gaffes, and lies weren't necessarily early warning signals of what turned out to be Alzheimers. Clinton seems to be more lucid than Reagan was, most of the time, but she's just about as dishonest and evil. The difference between Reagan's fans and Clinton's fans once again comes down to which party they favor.
