Monday, July 01, 2013

GOP Attacks Clinton As Being Too Old

It is pretty clear to anyone who keeps up with politics that if Hillary Clinton wants the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, it is hers for the asking. And it is equally clear that her popularity with the American public far exceeds that of any current GOP presidential prospect. That is why the GOP has been attacking Hillary and trying to put a dent in her popularity.

They first tried to do that by making people believe that Clinton was somehow responsible for the tragedy in Benghazi. But that "scandal" turned out to be more of a Republican scandal than a Democratic one, since the congressional Republicans cut millions of dollars for embassy security (even though Secretary of State Clinton had begged them to increase the funding for security).

When that didn't work, they had to come up with something new to attack her on -- and it looks like some of the top Republicans have decided she is too old for the job. Stuart Stevens (top Romney strategist) said it would be like going back in time, Mitch McConnell (minority leader in Senate) called it a "rerun of 'The Golden Girls'", and Karl Rove says "we're at the end of her generation". Even Scott Walker (GOP governor of Wisconsin) got into the act by claiming a younger candidate would be better "if you want to keep thinking about tomorrow".

It doesn't take a genius to decipher what they are saying -- Hillary Clinton is too old to be elected president. Now this could be ageism, the belief that older citizens are somehow less qualified than others, but I doubt it (since many of them are as old as she is). It could also be sexism, the idea that men (even older men) are better qualified than women, and there is probably some of that (since the Republicans seem determined to keep women in a second-class citizenship status). After all, Ronald Reagan was the same age when he ran for president as Hillary will be in 2016 (69 years old) -- and they certainly didn't think he was too old!

But I think the main reason they are trying to float the "too old" argument is they are scared crapless at the thought of a Hillary Clinton candidacy. They know they would have little to no chance of defeating her in a fair election (which is also why they are celebrating the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, and now quickly acting to restrict as many people as possible from being able to vote).

In short, the Republicans see their path to victory in future elections lies in demagoguery and cheating -- since they refuse to change their policies to appeal to a majority of American voters. And Hillary could probably even win in spite of those odious GOP efforts.


  1. Well, "demagoguery and cheating" seems to have served the Clintons very well in the past!

  2. And how did they cheat (and who)?

  3. Well, "demagoguery and cheating" seems to have served the Republicans, GW Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc. very well in the past, too! Let's get everyone included who has EVER cheated and demagogue-d. The list would be endless. Suffice it to say, todays GOP is trying to hide its fear which only highlights its FEAR.

  4. "And how did they cheat (and who)?"

    "Oh, let me count the ways." We could start with that murky land deal in even murkier Arkansas and then move on to 'la Lewinski' via a host of other matters of which even 'Trickie Dickie' would have been proud. Actually, I think Clinton was rather a good president evenif I would have counted my fingers after shaking hands with him.

    Gra'ma Banana has stumbled on the truth of the matter, politicians lie. Sometimes they have to but sometimes they just can't help themselves, and it makes absolutely no difference whether they are Left, Right or Centre. That is why most of us who do our feeble best to be honest would make rotten politicians!


ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.