Clicker. I would have voted for her, but now, other than her age, which I've wondered about, he brings up other points.

Or is it just sour grapes, not sure of his political leanings.

The first argument against another Clinton candidacy is generational. Baby boomers need to release their arthritic fingers from the torch of leadership and pass it off to another generation. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama will have accounted for 24 years of the presidency by 2016, which seems more than sufficient. Clinton's election potentially extends boomer influence in a manner that risks creating a generation gap that further increases political disaffection among young voters.

Age is another important consideration, regardless of howls of outrage on this question by her supporters. Clinton would be 69 when she raised her right hand for the oath of office. She would be the second-oldest person to become president -- younger than Ronald Reagan by several months.

The pressures of the White House amplify the afflictions of time. Arguably, an optimal president combines an earned wisdom and natural intellect with the residual energy of youth. No one does this by turning 70 during their first year as president, which would be Clinton's status.

Although doctors pronounced her perfectly healthy after a recent scare with a blood clot on the brain, the probabilities of geriatric disease in office are very real for someone who might be 77 at the end of a second term.


Reagan's comportment during his last years suggests that he had already begun moving behind the veil of Alzheimer's. This is not ageism. An accumulation of years defines our range of capabilities, physically and intellectually, and the Clintons as well as the nation need to confront the question of whether a person in their mid-70s is the best to serve as president. The obvious answer is no.

There is, nonetheless, no underestimating the cultural importance of the first female president and the glory it will bestow upon history's grandest democracy. The Democratic Party, too, will have an interest in being the political organization that gave the country its first female as well as African-American presidents.

Clinton, who is properly positioned with experience, has other challenges that impede her getting a chapter in future textbooks as the first woman in the Oval Office.

America is weary of limited political choices and dynasties. A second Clinton presidency might culminate in 28 years of Clinton-Bush control. We are, more than ever, a nation that desperately needs to renew itself with what is different and hopeful and visionary. Unfortunately, there is too much that is predictable with a second Clinton candidacy.

.

Jim, many good points there. If she runs I'll vote for her. But if she does not run, I'd be at a loss to pick another. I would scratch Biden from the list, though. )

Possible 2016 POTUS candidates [Democratic]
• Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States since 2009; U.S. Senator from Delaware 1973–2009; presidential candidate in 1988 and 2008[10][11][12]
• Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, 2005–2009; Governor of Vermont, 1991–2003; presidential candidate in 2004.[13][14][11]
• Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland since 2007; Mayor of Baltimore 1999–2007[15][16][11]
• Jerry Brown, Governor of California since 2011 and 1975–1983; Mayor of Oakland, 1999–2007; presidential candidate in 1976, 1980 and 1992[17][18]
• Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States Secretary of State 2009–2013; U.S. Senator from New York 2001–2009; presidential candidate in 2008[19][11][20]
• Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York since 2011; Attorney General of New York 2007–2010; United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 1997-2001[21][22][11]
• Kirsten Gillibrand, U.S. Senator from New York since 2009; U.S. Representative from New York 2007–2009[23][24][11]
• Christine Gregoire, Governor of Washington 2005–2013; Attorney General of Washington 1993–2005[25][26]
• John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado since 2011, Mayor of Denver, Colorado 2003–2011[27][28][29]
• Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Senator from Minnesota since 2007[30][31][11]
• Jack Markell, Governor of Delaware since 2009; Treasurer of Delaware 1993–2009[32][33]
• Janet Napolitano, President of the University of California since 2013; United States Secretary of Homeland Security 2009–2013; Governor of Arizona 2003–2009[34][35]
• Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana 2005–2013[36][37][11]
• Kathleen Sebelius, United States Secretary of Health and Human Services since 2009; Governor of Kansas 2003–2009[38][39]
• Mark Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia since 2009; Governor of Virginia 2002–2006[40][41][42]
• Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts since 2013[43][11][44]


The bracketed refs are Wikipedia

.

Hey we had 2 Bushes , why not 2 Clintons ?? AK is a very under represented state !

I hope to God SO !! I'll take a 2nd CLinton Presidency compared to the 2nd Bush one ANY DAMM DAY !! Playback (i.e. History), can be a bitch !

Seriously, the problem is there aren't a plethora of democrats that are both well experienced, AND electable. BO is barely a Baby Boomer... 1960 was the cutoff so he's as much of a Gen X- maybe more - than a boomer like Bill, W, and Hillary.. Furthermore, WTF cares what age they are - it's QUALIFICATIONS and experience that matters... DO employers choose who gets the job based on this algorithm ? Don't think so.

All the negatives sure weren't in play when Reagan was nominated and became president... and there WERE legitimate concerns about his health and age... women live longer.. so how does being 70 matter when RR was 70 ?? and he did have medical problems with the onset of Alzheimer and falling asleep during many meeting towards the end of his term. Thank God for Nancy and the fortune tellers did the right thing !

Ermmm ... Obama's only 52 -- he was 47 when elected, the 5th youngest person ever to do so. He was born in 1961, which is just 3 years shy of NOT being a boomer by the US Census Bureau's standards.

Teddy Roosevelt was the youngest President at age 42. If we match that with someone today, they will have been born in 1971, which I would argue isn't that much of a generational difference. 42 in 2016 would mean a person born in 1974, ten years into post-boomer-ism and not really young enough to be a child of the latest of Boomers (which to me would be the standard of a fully-next "generation") ...

I'm thinking it's going to be at least another couple Presidential terms before we even get to see viable truly-post-boomer candidates ...

Not to mention that 70 is the new 60.

I agree, they're barely outta diapers !! (esp. looking at Teddy Cruz and Ran Paul !!)

Enough already with the "Green Eggs & Ham" references!

Good balanced op-ed I think.

I was looking at Kate's list of candidates and nobody jumps out. If they US is beginning to lean more liberally why it there such a dirth of good candidates? I can name 5 GOPs off the top of my head that excite people more. Yes, that might be too many, but that's another story.

I would be interested in you listing those 5 exciting GOP candidates.
Oh.. and it's dearth.

Well, Dearth Vader exciting for conservatives, not for me.