Benghazi was first meant to be a feeble attack to try and get something on President Obama just before the 2012 elections, but it failed. Then they shifted the Republican Benghazi conspiracy to a sort of hybrid attack. First trying to find some twisted way to turn this into an Obama impeachment while simultaneously attacking Hillary Clinton—the probable 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate.
Now that the Benghazi conspiracy theorists have been pushed into the same category as “birthers,” Republicans needed to find something else with which to attack Hillary Clinton.
Apparently, in the twisted alternate reality where many of these Republicans seem to live, her age is their next target.
And I promise you, this will not go over well for Republicans.
First, before I move on, let’s look at what age each one of these former Republican Presidents, or failed Presidential candidates, was or would have been during their first year in office:
- President Ronald Reagan: 70 years old
- President George H. Bush: 65 years old
- 1996 Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole: 74
- 2008 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain: 72
- 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney 66
Hillary Clinton would be 69 in October 2017 (her first year in office).
So let me get this straight—the Republican Party wants to paint Hillary Clinton as too old, when George W. Bush (55) remains the only Republican President or Presidential candidate to be under the age of 65—in the last three decades.
Heck, 3 of the 5 were already in their 70’s. But they want to say Clinton is “too old?” Sometimes I wonder if Republicans can do anything that doesn’t make them look like complete hypocrites.
Now Democrats aren’t innocent here. Bill Clinton tried to paint both President George H. Bush and Senator Bob Dole as two men who were politicians from a different era that couldn’t address issues of that day. Implying that they were just too old.
But what this really boils down to is Republicans are trying to appeal to the “younger crowd.” Most of the candidates emerging for a possible 2016 run are in their 40’s or 50’s and they seem to think that by painting Hillary Clinton as old, they’ll appeal more to the younger generation.
Yeah, good luck with that. I don’t care what age you are, when you deny climate change, oppose same-sex marriage and want to build a wall between the United States and Mexico as part of your “immigration reform”—you’re not appealing to younger voters.
And if this is the angle they want to take, they’re going to enrage female voters against them.
There seems to have always been this stereotype of women and their age being held against them in a negative way, especially in the public eye. You see it in many aspects of public life such as on television or in Hollywood. Heck, you’ve even seen it with some of the comments by right-wing media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh who said, “Do the American people want to vote for somebody, a woman, and actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”
Basically, do the American people want to watch a woman get old.
So fine, let Republicans try to paint Hillary as some “old woman who’s out of touch”—I welcome it. It will only serve as yet another example of how truly out of touch they are, expose even more hypocrisy looking at their past candidates for President and put on full display their anti-female ideologies.
They’ll end up alienating women, not appealing to the young vote (because their social policies are that of the 1950’s and they seem to think science is equally as important as magic) and end up galvanizing Americans around an already very popular Hillary Clinton—just in time for her to kick their rear ends in 2016.
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- John Kelly Has Disgraced Himself, this Country and Our Military - October 21, 2017
- New Disgusting Report Exposes Fox News as the ‘Harvey Weinstein’ of Cable News - October 21, 2017
- For the Second Time, Trump Accuses Family of Fallen Hero Sgt. La David Johnson of Lying - October 20, 2017