The purpose of the Thursday Hillary Bash is of course to bash Hillary Clinton (on Thursdays) since she just isn't qualified to be a good commander in chief. So I do not take lightly the notion of questioning someone who questions her fitness to be president. But in this case, I do have to wonder - was this the right route to take?
 |
| Not brain damaged, but definitely policy-challenged. |
Thanks to Karl Rove, it looks like the latest focus on Hillary has surrounded her health. In 2016 she'll be 69 years old. I personally don't think that's too old to serve two terms as president, but when Ronald Reagan ran in 1980 at the same age as Hillary Clinton would run in 2016, many people on the left used the issue his age against him (or tried to do so). Borrowing from Saul Alinsky, why not use Hillary's age against her? But will it be effective?
In either a stroke of genius, or a massive brush of stupidity, Karl Rove threw the issue of Hillary's health out there. But he didn't limit it to her age, he brought up brain damage, as reported by the Washington Post:
If Clinton decides to run in 2016, her age and health are certain to be talked about, given that she would be vying to become the second-oldest person in history to be elected. She would be 69, only a little younger than Ronald Reagan when he won his first term in 1980.What had been only a secondary issue, compared with the prospect of electing the first female president, has suddenly burst to the fore. On Tuesday, the New York Post ran a provocative headline: “Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage.”
