Hillary Clinton

No, Hillary Clinton Is Not Too Old to Be President

The real problem is that she'd likely remain vigorous enough for eight years of military crusading, budget expansion, economic meddling, and irritating moralism.


Hillary Clinton
Chatham House / Wikimedia Commons

Are there good reasons to vote against Hillary Clinton? If you gave me some time—like two seconds—I could come up with some.

She's an unreformed hawk, a true believer in big government and a tedious speaker. During her 2008 campaign against Barack Obama, she waffled on immigration, disparaged free trade and compared her opponent, unfavorably, to John McCain.

She made false statements about her role in the 1993 White House travel-office scandal, defended her husband as he lied about Monica Lewinsky, lost records requested by prosecutors in another scandal only to find them two years later, and managed to make $100,000 trading on cattle futures in suspicious circumstances. She has offered no discernible reason she should be president beyond her resume and her sex.

If I had to come up with reasons not to vote against her, though, the list is shorter—including that, at 67, she's too old. But that's one that Republicans seem determined to flog.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, 47, raised the issue by saying he's in no rush to make a White House race because "I could run 20 years from now and still be about the same age as the former secretary of state is right now." In case anyone missed his point, he added that Clinton "embodies that old, tired top-down approach from the government."

Others have been less subtle. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, 72, flashed his trademark wit, saying the 2016 Democratic field resembles "a rerun of 'The Golden Girls.'" Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul expressed concern that she might not be up to the "rigorous physical ordeal" of a presidential campaign.

This line of attack should permanently debunk the charge that conservatives are inflexible. Paul showed no distress when his father, Ron, ran for president in 2012 at age 76. In 2008, McConnell's party nominated McCain, who was 72. Last time, it picked Mitt Romney, who may run again in 2016 despite being seven months older than Clinton.

The 1996 GOP presidential nominee, Bob Dole, was 73. Party idol Ronald Reagan was 69 when he took office—the same age as Clinton would be.

This last comparison is not entirely fair to her. That's because age affects men and women differently. Today, a typical white female born when Clinton was born can expect to draw breath for another 20 years. Her genes are working in her favor: Her father lived to 82 and her mother to 92.

Her sell-date is the last thing anyone should worry about. "Were she to win in 2016," the National Journal reported in April, "Clinton would take office with the longest projected total life expectancy of any president in the modern (era)." Yes, even longer than Obama, whose projected lifespan when he took office was a mere 79 years.

McCain's life expectancy in 2008, according to the actuarial tables, gave him just another 12 years before expiring. That estimate didn't take into account the possibly life-shortening effects of the physical abuse he suffered as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. But Republicans had no evident qualms about putting him in the Oval Office.

Reagan may be taken as proof that 69 is too old, because he reportedly showed signs of Alzheimer's disease during his second term. The risk that Clinton will develop it before 2025 is higher than if she were younger, but still low. In this country, only 2.9 percent of whites between the ages of 65 and 74 get it, and 10.9 percent between the ages of 75 and 84.

Senility is a risk that goes with senior citizen discounts, but age has compensations as well. Had Bill Clinton been 66 when he took office instead of 46, he might have left the interns alone. In 2008, McCain called Obama "a young man with very little experience." That was before the Arizona senator picked a running mate who was even younger and less experienced.

Even during his re-election campaign, at age 51, one conservative commentator called Obama "callow." If Democrats chose to nominate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. (47), or Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (51), you would not hear a chorus of conservatives exclaiming, "Now I'll have to consider voting Democratic."

The real problem with Clinton is that in all likelihood she will remain vigorous enough to assure eight years of military crusading, budget expansion, economic meddling, and irritating moralism. A dozing geezer, a burned-out comet, a spent volcano? Don't I wish.

NEXT: Jim Webb Prepares for 2016 Presidential Run

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think too incompetent will suffice. Oh, and too evil.

    1. not to mention, too physically hideous to endur for 4 years…bad enough we have to look at here for even brief periods like CNN sound bites.

    2. I would literally vote for a syphilitic camel before I would vote for her, for a host of reasons – the question of her age does not arise.

  2. What about the businesses don’t create jobs quote? That’s an automatic disqualification.

    1. Not to 99% of her base, it isn’t. That’s sort of the problem.

    2. She’s definitely too old to live that stupid statement down.

  3. I wouldn’t vote for 35 year old Hillary or 88 year old Hillary. There, next question.

  4. OT: WWII museum gets rid of all firearms on display because of I594– as a benefactor loaning the firearms to the museum for an exhibit and then the museum returning said firearms counts as a “transfers”, requiring a background check for every firearm in both directions.

    Supporters of I594 whine, “that’s not what we meant” even though that’s exactly what the law says. Then i594 proponents go on to carefully explain why their own law won’t work.


    Geoff Potter, a spokesman for the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, which led the I-594 campaign, said the measure was designed to prevent criminals from buying weapons without background checks at gun shows – not to saddle museums and donors to historical exhibits.

    “This is clearly not what was concerned when I-594 was designed,” Potter said. “You can’t craft every possibility into every law. We think they can go forward with the exhibit, and we hope they will.”

    1. The ludicrousness of this fucking initiative is our best hope for its repeal or a court challenge. As soon as I read it months ago I boggled at the wording of it. It’s too stupid to exist.

      1. nothing is too stupid to exist to a real democrat

      2. Oh, and I forgot to add, there is going to be MASSIVE civil disobedience regarding it, just like the reactions to the new gun laws in CT and NY.

        I suppose the next best thing to no new gun control is gun control so stupid and unenforceable that it becomes a mockery as everyone just ignores it. Of course, for the few people who get busted for it anyway, it’s not the next best thing.

        1. Unfortunately, this is how you get these New Jersey type situations where someone ignorant of the technical details of the law, or someone who just gets bad information while trying to comply with the law ends up going to prison.

          The state realizes that no one takes these laws seriously, and then issues an edict to “prosecute vigorously anyone found in violation” for the sole purpose of “sending a message”.

    2. You can’t craft every possibility into every law. In other words, LOOOOOPHOLEZZZ!

      1. And the dude’s a mendacious liar. You can’t buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. He’s such a fucking liar.

        1. Well, technically, I believe you can, but truly private sellers who don’t have to run background checks don’t generally pay for the booths at the gun shows. It’s not worth it.

      2. Do these people know what “loophole” means? It’s an opening to stick a gun through to defend your home and your freedom.

    3. Do they have one shred of evidence that criminals were going to gun shows and buying guns to skirt the background check requirements?

      1. Of course. Criminals have guns. Criminals can’t get guns at gun shops. The only other place to get guns is gun shows. See, evidence.

      2. You CAN’T. It’s a lie. In Washington, to buy a gun at a gun show– at least the main gun show that exists in this state (Washington Arms Collectors or WAC) you have to be a member. To be a member, you must go through a background check.

        I cannot walk up to a table at a WAC show and walk away with a gun without going through a background check.

        1. I thought you could get a guest pass for the day? Or does a guest pass not allow you to buy?

          Man, I haven’t been to a WAC show in a while.

          1. Nope, pass does not allow you to buy. Pass just lets you go in and buy other products that aren’t firearms.

            I can buy grips, magazines, certain parts, knives, bayonets etc. But to buy a firearm, you must become a member.

            Now, they did have signs up that said “some firearms available for private sale”. I believe what that means is that if you see something you like, you can talk to the person running the table and then OUTSIDE of the show, make a transaction.

            I handled a kick ass broomhandle Mauser which I fell in love with, and then found out later that because I wasn’t a member, I technically wasn’t even supposed to HANDLE the firearm.

              1. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

                /any lawyer

            1. Yeah, but those are WAC’s rules. They have nothing to do with state law. When’s the next show, and is it in Puyallup or Monroe?

              OK, I just checked and there’s one Sunday in Puyallup. Maybe I should go. There’s also one in Monroe on Dec 6th. Isn’t that the date the initiative takes effect?

              1. Yeah, but those are WAC’s rules.

                That is correct. It’s private actors putting in their own rules to thwart their own enterprise becoming a black market in illegal guns full of mexican drug cartels, no law req’d.

    4. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

  5. Rand Paul was alluding to the fact that she had a stroke and tried to hide it.

  6. Too old?

    How about too fucking stupid?
    Too evil?
    Too much of a cunt?
    Too ugly?

    Let’s not be ageists here people.

    1. What difference at this point does it make?

  7. “She has offered no discernible reason she should be president beyond her resume and her sex.’

    What resume? Is coat-tail riding a career now?

    1. She has proven very adept at covering for powerful men.

      1. “She has proven very adept at covering for powerful men.”

        So she’s got Putin’s endorsement?

        1. Wouldn’t surprise me.

    2. I would assume she doesn’t offer much sex either, if we’re to take her husbands actions into account.

  8. By all means, make a big deal about the female candidate’s age. Nobody will turn that against you.

    1. That’s not really anyone’s main point of attack, that’s just Chapman being Chapman.

  9. “This is clearly not what was concerned when I-594 was designed,” Potter said. “You can’t craft every possibility into every law.


    Stop nitpicking, and use the law as it was intended: to prevent anything bad from ever happening again. What’s so fucking complicated about that?

  10. From what I’ve read the human mind reaches it’s zenith in the early 20’s. We really need Chelsea. I only know my own mind, and barely so. I’ve spent some time programming. When I was in my 20’s I would look at a programming language syntax diagram once or twice and got it. At 50 I took up Python and I struggle with it.

    1. 20-somethings only think they’re smart. We old guys know better.

    2. It’s certainly true for things like math and learning programming languages. There are some things that people of a certain age are often better at, I think. Or should we bin the age requirements for president?

  11. No, Hillary Clinton Is Not Too Old to Be President

    But John McCain was?

    Holy shit, this is a new low for Chapman. I didn’t think the bar could go lower either.

    Chapman, You’re a fucking hypocrite.

    1. Please note, this is in no way an endorsement for any aforementioned fuckwads.

    2. Chapman is a fucking douche.

      That said, her age doesn’t matter, her policies do.

      1. Completely agree. I just find it hilarious that Chapman probably doesn’t even realize how much of a cheerleader he is.

        1. Someone has to take Weigel’s place.

    3. I checked to see if this was actually the case, and viola:

      the student raised an important question that many of his elders have been strangely unwilling to pursue. It may seem rude and even cruel to say that someone is simply too old to be entrusted with the presidency. But in McCain’s case, by any sensible standard, it’s also true.

      In contrast, from this article:

      If I had to come up with reasons not to vote against her, though, the list is shorter?including that, at 67, she’s too old. But that’s one that Republicans seem determined to flog.

      FFS, he even *specifically mentions* McCain in this article:

      McCain’s life expectancy in 2008, according to the actuarial tables, gave him just another 12 years before expiring. That estimate didn’t take into account the possibly life-shortening effects of the physical abuse he suffered as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. But Republicans had no evident qualms about putting him in the Oval Office.

      Chapman: Shitburger of the Century

      1. Oh yeah, I read it before posting.

        1. I didn’t really doubt (it’s Chapman, after all), but I like to confirm links myself.

  12. I now wonder what a wad of fuck looks like, but I’m far too scared to google it.

  13. Yes.

    Then Reagan was too old too.

    1. I bet you’re the kind of guy who would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around. I’ll be watching you.

    2. It’s almost like I summoned you with my comment.

    3. Palin’s Buttplug|11.20.14 @ 12:37PM|#

      Turd, tell us about how O-care was not going to affect the debt, since the CBO said so. I like that story.
      And the one about how it wasn’t going to have any effect on the D’s election chances? Always good for a chuckle!

    4. Comments from the Gruber gallery are not seriously considered. I’m surprised you’d show up here after being outed as stupid.

  14. Too old? No. She is just too much of a statist hack that pontificates about how business, apparently, do not create jobs. She will NEVER be president.

  15. “Vote for Granny Clinton!”

    Oh yeah…..that will be a big success with the vaunted youth/millennial voter. They are just itching to support an old, overweight white woman.

  16. Too old? Chapman, as a likely Hillary voter, undoubtedly thinks not.

  17. just Chapman being Chapman.

    Which is why I never ever read his drivel.

    1. Explains your relatively (in comparison to me) firm grasp of reality.

  18. Eh, I’ve already moved on to Chelsea. *gag*

    1. As if you had a dick big enough to gag that horse face.

      1. Or at least, I don’t.

  19. Age alone? No.

    Capability and capacity for hard work? Hell yes. And that is something that most people lose, at varying rates, as they age.

    So, yes, when age impairs your capability and capacity for hard work, you are too old for the job. No matter when you were born.

    1. And that is something that most people lose, at varying rates, as they age.

      Wow, you’re generous. I wouldn’t grant that she had the capability nor capacity to begin with.

    2. The problem RC is that the Presidency, while a hard job does not when done properly require hard work. The hard work is what the staff is for. The successful Presidents of both parties have been Presidents who could delegate and learned how not to work themselves to death on the details.

      You will never find a harder working President than Carter. You will also be more hard pressed to find a more ineffective one not named Obama.

    3. I would prefer a president who is tired and lazy and doesn’t try to do much. More golf, less meddling please.

  20. This is Step #1.

    Step #2 in this little dance is for Chapman to say, “Well sure, Hillary wasn’t my favorite candidate but look at how mean and extreme that Rand Paul guy is! I mean, he is supported by groups X, Y, and Z, and his dad was supported by mean persons A, B, and C. How can anyone of good repute support that?”

    It’s always a good time to vote for Democrats in Chapman’s world.

    1. Isn’t Chapman the “I always wanted to vote for a black man for President” guy?

      1. I don’t know, but it sure sounds like his special brand of idiocy.

  21. What is going to do Hillary in is not her age and not that she is a woman. What is going to kill her chances is that she is just unpleasant and not very likable. Americans won’t vote for President they don’t think is a nice person. And no amount of spin is going to make Hillary seem nice.

  22. No one’s going to vote for a grandma. Especially when she’s a Clinton.

  23. I’m too busy to provide links, but the issue ignored here is her health. Google it. She has some major health issues which are not talked about. She’s far less healthy Reagan was.

    1. This video is not available in your country.

    2. What is that, Canadian Youtube?

  24. I still don’t think she’s going to be president. Age and health are among the many reasons why. The other big one is that while a lot of people like her just enough to enthusiastically support her for the good of the party, a lot of people also really hate her.

  25. her resume is great. there was that time that guy duped her. and that other guy duped her. and then that other guy duped her.

  26. Age has nothing to do with it. She’s evil and dishonest, that’s why she shouldn’t be president.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.